The magistrate court sitting in Kalyan, Maharashtra, on Tuesday granted bail to Ramesh Mhatre, a corporator affiliated with the Shiv Sena, who had been arrested in relation to an alleged assault on doctors and medical personnel at a civic hospital in Thane. The court’s order came after the prosecution opposed the bail application, citing concerns over the safety of the complainant doctor and the accused’s alleged criminal history.
According to the police, Mhatre was taken into judicial custody on 13 July 2026 after the expiry of his police custody period. His counsel moved for bail shortly thereafter, and the matter was listed for hearing on 14 July 2026. During the hearing, the police objected to the release of the accused on the ground that his liberty could endanger the doctor who had filed the complaint. The police further submitted that Mhatre faced multiple first information reports (FIRs) in the past, which they described as indicative of a pattern of criminal behaviour. They emphasised that the alleged assault targeted members of the medical profession, a group they described as performing a noble public service, and argued that bail should not be granted in such circumstances.
In response, Mhatre’s legal representative contended that the criminal cases cited by the police had either resulted in acquittals or had been quashed by the courts. He pointed out that, at present, only one case remains pending against his client. The defence urged the court to consider imposing suitable conditions to address the police’s apprehensions regarding the safety of the complainant. Additionally, the defence highlighted the accused’s medical condition, stating that Mhatre suffers from a single kidney and several other ailments, which, they argued, warranted a lenient approach.
After hearing both sides, the magistrate court decided to grant bail. The order specifies that Mhatre shall furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with one or more sureties to the satisfaction of the court. The court indicated that a detailed order elaborating on the reasoning and the conditions attached to the bail will be made available in due course.
The underlying incident, as outlined in the FIR, occurred on 6 July 2026 at the civic hospital in Thane. The FIR alleges that Mhatre, accompanied by aides, assaulted two doctors and other hospital staff following a disagreement over the treatment of a pregnant woman and her newborn. The doctors had advised transferring the patient to another facility because the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) beds were unavailable. The patient’s family allegedly contacted Mhatre after receiving this advice, after which the alleged assault took place. The incident provoked widespread public reaction and prompted the Indian Medical Association to warn of a possible shutdown of clinics and hospitals if adequate action was not taken.
Following the alleged assault, a case was registered against Mhatre and five other individuals. They were charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, unlawful assembly, and rioting. Mhatre was arrested on 8 July 2026. After his arrest, he complained of chest pain and was admitted to the Thane District Civil Hospital. The police sought permission to produce him before the court via video conference, but the magistrate rejected the request and directed his physical appearance in court. He was subsequently produced and kept in police custody until 13 July 2026, after which he was remanded to judicial custody.
The bail order reflects the court’s balancing of the accused’s right to liberty against the interests of the investigation and the safety of the complainant. By imposing a monetary bond and leaving the possibility of additional conditions to be detailed in the forthcoming order, the court sought to mitigate the risks highlighted by the prosecution while acknowledging the defence’s submissions regarding the accused’s medical condition and the status of the pending cases. The matter remains sub judice, and further developments await the detailed order and any subsequent proceedings.