Mumbai, India – A Special Judge for CBI cases in Greater Bombay has granted Babu Bhagwan Kamble, a 57-year-old peon with Central Railway, bail in a bribery case. Kamble was arrested on July 24, 2021, along with a co-accused, after a CBI trap operation allegedly caught them accepting a bribe of ₹10,000.
The Allegations: A Demand for Contractual Favor
The case originated from an FIR filed by the CBI A.C.B., Mumbai, on July 23, 2021. The complainant, a contractor managing “Pay and Use Toilets” for Indian Railways, claimed that Gajanan Sharad Joshi (accused No. 1), a senior official, demanded ₹25,000 to ensure the smooth continuation of his contract, plus an additional ₹5,000 monthly. Babu Bhagwan Kamble (accused No. 2), who served as Joshi’s attendant, was implicated in the bribery scheme.
Following verification of the complaint with independent witnesses and recorded conversations, the CBI confirmed a bribe demand of ₹10,000. A successful trap was then set on July 24, 2021, leading to the alleged red-handed capture of both accused. They were arrested and have been in judicial custody since July 25, 2021.
Applicant’s Defense: False Implication and Cooperation
Represented by Ld. Advocate Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Kamble sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintained his innocence, asserting he was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offense. Kamble, from a low-income family, stated he was merely following orders from his superiors.
His counsel emphasized Kamble’s deep community ties, arguing there was no risk of him absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. It was also highlighted that Kamble’s custody exceeding 48 hours would lead to his automatic suspension from Central Railway services, diminishing any ability to influence railway officials. The defense contended that a significant portion of the investigation, particularly concerning the trap and bribe recovery, was complete, making further detention unnecessary. Kamble expressed his willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, including providing a voice sample.
Prosecution’s Stance: Concerns Over Influence and Ongoing Probes
The prosecution, led by Ld. P.P. Mr. P. K. B. Gaikwad for CBI, opposed the bail application. Their primary concerns revolved around the possibility of Kamble, as a long-term Central Railway employee, threatening the complainant, influencing railway officials, and obstructing the voice identification process. They noted that no witnesses had been examined yet and that documents seized from Kamble’s residence were still under scrutiny, potentially revealing further information and the involvement of other officials in a “regular collection of bribe amount.”
The prosecution also pointed out that police custody for the accused was not initially sought because Kamble tested positive for COVID-19, preventing interrogation. They cited various Supreme Court judgments underscoring the gravity of economic and corruption offenses, advocating for a cautious approach to bail in such cases.
Court’s Decision: Balancing Liberty and Investigative Needs
Special Judge V.C. Barde carefully weighed the arguments from both sides. While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns about potential witness influence and the need for voice samples and document verification, the court considered several factors:
- Kamble’s role as a peon and the relatively small alleged bribe amount of ₹10,000, distinguishing it from the larger economic offenses cited by the prosecution.
- The successful trap and recovery of the bribe, indicating a substantial part of the investigation for this specific incident was complete.
- The likelihood of Kamble’s suspension from railway service, which would reduce his capacity to influence officials.
- The court’s ability to impose strict conditions to ensure his cooperation and prevent witness tampering.
The judge referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which stresses that each bail application must be assessed individually. It highlights that unsubstantiated fears of “flight risk” or “tampering with evidence” should not, without concrete evidence, lead to bail denial, especially when personal liberty is at stake and the accused has shown cooperation.
Ultimately, the court determined that given the specific nature of the offense (a successful trap case with recovered bribe money) and the advanced stage of this part of the investigation, denying bail was not justified, especially when compared to the magnitude of the economic offenses cited by the prosecution.
The Special Judge ordered Babu Bhagwan Kamble’s release on bail, subject to conditions that mandate his cooperation with the investigation, including providing his voice sample when required, and strictly prohibit any attempts to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.