The Bombay High Court on Monday criticised the police investigation into the assault of doctors at a KDMC-run hospital in which Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre is the main accused [High Court on its own motion v. Ramesh Mhatre & Ors.]. .A division bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad cited the lack of progress in the probe and directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to take over the investigation.“What has the police done in the last 3-4 days? We noticed it… there was no investigation at all," the Court said..The Court also ordered protection for the complainant - doctor and permitted the recording of the statement in Washim under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) procedure..According to the FIR, Mhatre and his aides allegedly attacked two doctors and other hospital staff at the civic hospital after a dispute over the treatment of a pregnant woman and her newborn. The doctors had advised shifting the patient to another facility due to unavailability of NICU beds. The patient’s family allegedly contacted Mhatre, following which the assault took place on July 6.A case was registered against Mhatre who was arrested on July 8 along with five other accused.They were booked for offences including assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, unlawful assembly and rioting.He was granted bail by a sessions court on July 14.However, the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the same, held a special sitting on July 18, Saturday, and stayed the bail order.During the hearing of the matter on Monday, the Bench was informed that Mhatre had been remanded to judicial custody and could now move for regular bail..Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for the accused, pressed for relief. “Accused has surrendered, went behind bars. I am only requesting one chance for bail,” Ponda said..However, the Court expressed concern, citing Mhatre’s past record. “From 1990, offences punishable under 302, four or five cases 354, beating government employees! I have seen the videos… brutally assaulted! I am really wondering whether the message has gone or not," the court said. It wondered what the situation would be if such assaults happen on lawyers. "Today there is a news, yesterday a patient beat up a doctor. Patient's relative, son of the patient, beat up a doctor. We really hope and pray this infection doesn't reach up to the doorstep of lawyers. Just imagine what will happen! A famous criminal lawyer like declines to take somebody's brief. It's like a doctor saying, 'I have no infrastructure, I can't treat you.' So, beat up the doctor. If a lawyer says, 'I can't take up your case...' What is the next step?” the bench asked..The Court also questioned the conduct of elected representatives. “You are in public life. You are for the public. You have to serve the public. Why do you behave like this? Why do you beat the public? Those who are your voters,” it said. "We are surprised. We know very little about elections. But this seems to be very surprising for us. That a person who goes to the voters and says, 'I want to serve you. You vote for me. Because I will serve you'," the bench remarked.
