Mumbai – A Special Court in Mumbai, on April 27, 2018, granted bail to Shaileshkumar Mahadev Kambli, an employee of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, who was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a trap case. The court’s decision highlighted the lack of a strong prima facie case for continued custody, observing that Kambli posed a low flight risk and was unlikely to tamper with witnesses.

Kambli had been arrested in ACB Mumbai C.R. No. 17/2018, facing charges under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – commonly associated with public servants accepting gratification or engaging in criminal misconduct.

Defense Cites Completed Probe, Prosecution Argues Non-Cooperation

During the bail hearing, Kambli’s counsel, Mr. Karde, argued that his client was innocent, the investigation was “almost over,” and there was no risk of him fleeing from justice. He requested Kambli’s release on bail.

The prosecution, represented by APP Mr. Gonsalves, strongly opposed the application. They contended that the investigation was still in its “primary stage,” witness statements were yet to be recorded, and Kambli had not cooperated with the Investigating Officer in revealing the name of an alleged accomplice.

Court Finds No Need for Further Custody

Special Judge D.K. Gudadhe, after reviewing the remand papers, noted a critical point: the ACB’s request for further police custody on the very day of the bail hearing, specifically to investigate the alleged accomplice, had been rejected by the court as “not necessary.” This observation significantly weakened the prosecution’s argument for continued detention.

The judge then turned his attention to the standard considerations for bail – whether the accused would remain present for the trial and whether they would tamper with prosecution witnesses. He observed that the prosecution had not put forth any specific arguments on these points.

Judge Gudadhe further reasoned that in “trap matters,” like the one involving Kambli, the witnesses are generally government servants, which leads to “less likelihood of them being influenced by the accused.” Additionally, he factored in Kambli’s stable ties to the community, noting that he is a “permanent resident of Mumbai” and “in service of Mumbai Municipal Corporation.” This led the court to conclude there was “less likelihood of his fleeing away from the justice.”

Bail Granted with Conditions

Considering all these points, the Special Judge determined that Kambli could “very well be released on bail.”

Shaileshkumar Mahadev Kambli was granted bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

The court imposed the following conditions:

• Kambli must attend the Anti-Corruption Bureau Mumbai every day for seven days from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. to cooperate with further investigation, if any.
• He is directed not to “win over” (tamper with) any witness or prosecution evidence.
• He must attend the Anti-Corruption Bureau Mumbai as and when called by the Investigating Officer in connection with the case.

The bail application was accordingly disposed of, underscoring the judiciary’s role in balancing the demands of investigation with the liberty of an accused, particularly when the grounds for continued custody appear insufficient.