BMC engineer accused of sexual harassment granted pre-arrest bail

A junior engineer in Mumbai's water supply department has secured pre-arrest bail after being accused of teasing and demanding sexual favours from a colleague. The judge granted bail, stating that the primary allegations were directed towards the co-accused, and that stringent conditions would prevent absconding and tampering with witnesses. The accused has been charged with sexual harassment, stalking, insulting the modesty of a woman, and common intention.

Mumbai: A 30-year-old junior engineer employed in the water supply department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), accused along with two others of teasing and demanding sexual favours from a colleague, secured pre-arrest bail from the sessions court on Thursday.

HT Image

The accused, Subhash Kamble, was granted anticipatory bail by additional sessions judge SN Patil. The judge noted that the primary allegations were directed towards the co-accused. “If the accused is not released on pre-arrest bail, great prejudice would be caused to him. If the accused is released on bail with stringent conditions, the purpose would be served and the possibility of absconding and tampering with the witness may be curtailed,” the order said.

Kamble was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 and one or more solvent sureties in the same amount for his release.

As per the prosecution, the complainant, employed as a labourer in the civic body, faced harassment from Kamble and two others—Rajaram Shinde, a store assistant, and Santosh Shinde worked as a Mukadam. The allegations included teasing and soliciting sexual favours from the complainant, who had rejected a marriage proposal from Rajaram.

Santosh, however, negatively took this and defamed the complainant in the entire department. Following this, the applicant, Kamble, benefited from these rumours and allegedly spoke rudely to her.

Kamble, according to the complainant, used obscene language and outraged her modesty several times. Kamble, along with Rajaram and Santosh would deliberately demand sexual favours from the informant, though she denied and ignored them every time.

Kamble submitted that the complainant had lodged a false complaint against him out of spite. Kamble contended that he had only instructed the complainant to arrive at the office on time and had threatened a transfer based on her performance.

Kamble faced charges under sections 354(A) (sexual harassment), 354(D) (stalking), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.