A Mumbai sessions court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of four individuals accused of assaulting a nurse and security personnel at KEM Hospital last month. The court emphasized that the sanctity of hospital premises, where thousands seek treatment in peaceful conditions, would be compromised if such violence is permitted.
Court's Observations
Additional Sessions Judge Y P Manathkar noted that the incident could not be treated as an ordinary assault due to its occurrence within a hospital and the targeting of staff performing their duties. The judge stated, "Keeping aside the nature of the injury and the seriousness of the assault, the incident of beating of the nurse on the premises of the hospital by the relatives of the deceased cannot be viewed leniently."
The court further observed that there was no evidence at this stage to attribute the patient's death to medical negligence. The order read, "As on today, there is no document or evidence in the form of medical papers before me to hold that the death of Ganesh Kolekar was a result of utter medical negligence by the doctors and nursing staff of KEM Hospital."
Incident Details
The Bhoiwada police had booked Baliram Sawant, Manik Sawant, Gayabai Sawant, and Babasaheb Jadhav in connection with the case. According to the prosecution, nurse Tejaswini Patil was on night duty when patient Ganesh Kolekar, admitted for a liver ailment, became unconscious around 1 am on April 28. The doctor examined him, administered an injection, and placed him on a ventilator. Kolekar's mother was informed of his death around 2 am.
Relatives arrived at Ward No. 41 around 5 am and began quarrelling with Patil and others over the death. It was alleged that Gayabai and another woman assaulted Patil, and when security personnel Sunita Salunkhe, Balaji Munde, and Balasaheb Basre intervened, Baliram and Babasaheb attacked them.
Arguments and Rejection
The defense sought relief, arguing that the offences under the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act carry a maximum punishment of three years, and claimed that police action was driven by pressure from hospital staff. The prosecution opposed the plea, citing medical papers and CCTV footage, and argued that granting protection would encourage attacks on hospital staff after adverse outcomes.
Rejecting the defense's argument that anticipatory bail should be granted because no recovery was required, the judge stated, "It is settled that anticipatory bail is not a prerogative right of the accused only because police do not require anything to be recovered from the accused." The order added, "Ultimately, it is the seriousness of the crime and the impact made by it upon social fabrication that governs the principles of granting anticipatory bail."
