The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned Palghar police over the investigation into an alleged assault at a private hospital, asking why nine of the 10 accused remained absconding and whether the investigating officer had taken the case seriously.
A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation concerning the assault of doctors at a Dombivli municipal hospital when the court was informed about the separate incident at Relief Hospital in Palghar. The judges said the case involved a sensitive matter in which hospital staff were allegedly assaulted, doctors threatened and property placed at risk.
According to the public prosecutor, the Palghar incident took place at about 1.50am on Sunday after five govindas injured during dahi handi celebrations were advised to undergo CT scans. Shiv Sena workers allegedly assaulted a hospital employee, abused doctors and threatened to damage the facility. An FIR was registered at around 6.40am.
Of the 10 accused named or identified in connection with the incident, one has been arrested, nine are absconding and seven remain unidentified, the court was told. The arrested accused, Shiv Sena Palghar city chief Rahul Gharat, was remanded to police custody twice. When the bench asked whether he had disclosed the identities of the unknown accused, the prosecutor said he had not.
The court questioned Palghar Superintendent of Police Yatish Deshmukh about the steps taken to locate the absconding accused. “How can 8-9 persons abscond?” Justice Gadkari asked, according to the proceedings reported by the Times of India. Deshmukh said he would ensure that the accused were arrested.
The judges also questioned how the accused could disappear after the FIR was registered and whether they had received information about the registration of the case. Justice Gadkari said the court could ask the crime branch to intervene if the investigation was not being conducted seriously. The bench further asked why an adverse inference should not be drawn against the investigating officer.
The court raised a separate procedural concern over the case diary submitted by the police. The judges said the documents were not maintained in continued pagination, describing the practice as a breach of provisions under the CrPC or BNSS, previous High Court orders and circulars issued by the Director General of Police. The bench also objected to information being submitted across the bar instead of through an affidavit.
The public prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the DGP on possible action against the investigating officer. The prosecutor later told the court that the DGP, who was in Delhi, would return on Thursday, call for the complete record and decide what action should be taken.
The hearing also covered the earlier Dombivli hospital assault case. The prosecutor informed the court that a chargesheet had been filed in that matter and that a special public prosecutor had been appointed. The High Court posted both cases for further hearing on Friday.
