Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday. Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4. Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court that the state would file its reply within a week in the matter. Indian-origin Dr. Patil, hailing from Jalgaon, is facing a criminal case here for posting allegedly objectionable content involving Bharatiya Janata Party leaders on social media. After his posts on a FB page, ‘Shehar Vikas Aghadi’, a Mumbai BJP media cell functionary lodged a criminal complaint following which the NM Joshi Marg Police registered a FIR (Dec. 18, 2025) and subsequently issued a LoC against Dr. Patil, restricting his travels. The complainant Nikhil Bhamre filed the complaint in December 2025, contending that Dr. Patil on Dec. 14 posted offensive content intended to spread ‘disinformation and falsehoods’ about the BJP and its leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Among others, the police invoked BNSS Sec. 353(2) that attracts a 3-year jail term for publishing or circulating statements or rumours through electronic media with intent to promote enmity or hatred between communities. Based on the FIR, Dr. Patil was detained and questioned for 15 hours when he arrived with his wife from London at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (Jan. 10), and again prevented from returning to Manchester, UK on Jan. 19 in view of the ongoing investigations. On Wednesday (Jan. 21) Dr. Patil recorded his statement before the Mumbai Police and now he has moved the high court. Besides seeking quashing of the FIR and the LoC, he has sought removal of his name from the database imposing restrictions on his international travels. Through his Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, the medico has sought interim relief in the form of a stay on further probe by Crime Branch-III and coercive action, restraint on filing any charge-sheet during the pendency of the petition and permission to go back to the UK. Pasbola submitted to the court that Dr. Patil had voluntarily travelled from the UK to India and was unaware of the FIR when he landed here. Sathe argued that Patil had appeared in connection with other posts and was not fully cooperating with the investigators.
Comments