UK-based doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil has told the Bombay High Court that he will cooperate with Mumbai Police and return to the country whenever required, seeking permission to travel back to the United Kingdom after being restrained from leaving over a case linked to his social media posts on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders.Patil, 49, a UK citizen and consultant doctor with the National Health Service, filed an undertaking saying he would not evade the legal process and would participate in the investigation in good faith. His parents, who are based in Jalgaon, also submitted an undertaking assuring the court that they would help secure his presence during the probe. The matter is expected to be taken up again on May 5, when the court will consider whether the lookout circular preventing him from leaving the country should remain in force.
The case has placed before the court a familiar but increasingly sensitive question: how far criminal law can be used against political commentary on social media, particularly when the accused is a foreign citizen with professional and family obligations abroad. Patil has argued that the travel restriction has left him unable to resume work in the UK, where his wife and child are based.
The proceedings arise from a complaint filed in December by Nikhil Bhamre, a functionary associated with the BJP’s Maharashtra social media operations. An FIR was registered at N. M. Joshi Marg police station in Mumbai on December 18. Police have alleged that Patil posted objectionable and defamatory material on Facebook targeting senior BJP leaders, including the Prime Minister, and that the content could affect public order. The FIR is understood to include provisions dealing with statements capable of spreading false information and creating enmity or hatred between communities.
Patil has challenged both the FIR and the lookout circular before the High Court. His legal team has argued that one of the posts relied upon by the police did not name the Prime Minister or directly refer to him, and that the case amounts to an excessive response to political speech. The police, however, have defended the case, maintaining that the posts were not ordinary criticism but allegedly scandalous and inflammatory statements that warranted investigation.
The chronology has been central to Patil’s plea. He arrived at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport on January 10 and was intercepted by the police. He and his wife were questioned and later released after a preliminary inquiry. He was served with a notice requiring his appearance before the investigating agency rather than being arrested. On January 19, he was stopped from leaving the country, with authorities citing the FIR and the lookout circular.
Before the High Court, Patil has sought permission to return to the UK while undertaking to appear before investigators when called. He has asked that he be given 15 days’ notice for any required appearance, citing the need to manage his medical duties and travel from Britain. His affidavit also makes clear that the undertaking should not be treated as an admission of wrongdoing.
Justice Ashwin Bhobe had earlier indicated that the state could not keep Patil restrained indefinitely without showing progress in the investigation. The Maharashtra government has indicated that it would have no objection to lifting the travel restriction if the necessary probe reports were not produced within the timeframe discussed before the court. That position has opened the way for conditional relief, though the final decision remains with the High Court.
The case has drawn attention because it sits at the intersection of political speech, criminal defamation-style complaints, police powers and cross-border mobility. For Patil, the immediate question is whether he can return to his NHS post while the investigation continues. For the state, the issue is whether his presence in the country is necessary to complete the probe and whether a foreign citizen accused in a politically sensitive case can be permitted to travel without weakening the investigation.