Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 5, 2024 – Dharmendra Jagdambaprasad Jaiswar, a 34-year-old labourer, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a 2015 case involving allegations of administering a stupefying substance and assault.

Background of the Case:

Jaiswar was arrested in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2015, registered at the Dadar Police Station, for offenses under sections 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case alleged that in the intervening night of January 25-26, 2015, the complainant, Pradeep Vilas Waghchoure, was given a stupefying tablet by co-accused Salman, made to drink liquor, and subsequently assaulted while incapacitated.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Prachita Vare, representing Jaiswar, argued that her client was arrested on March 22, 2024, nearly nine years after the incident and the FIR registration on February 16, 2015. She emphasized that the allegation of administering the stupefying tablet was against co-accused Salman, not Jaiswar. She further argued that Jaiswar had also consumed the tablet and liquor, making him equally intoxicated as the complainant. She pointed out that the police had filed an A-summary (report seeking to close the case due to lack of evidence) in 2016, which was granted by the court, and questioned the reasons for Jaiswar’s arrest in 2024.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sulbha Joshi, representing the State, opposed the bail application, stating that Jaiswar had been absconding since the registration of the crime, leading to the filing of the A-summary. She argued that he was arrested after significant efforts based on police leads and might abscond again if granted bail.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar granted bail to Jaiswar. The court, after scrutinizing the FIR and related documents, observed that the allegation of administering the tablet was solely against co-accused Salman. The court noted that Jaiswar had also consumed the tablet and liquor, suggesting he was also in an intoxicated state.

The court emphasized that the FIR did not disclose any offense under sections 328 or 324 of the IPC against Jaiswar. While acknowledging the prosecution’s claim that Jaiswar was absconding, the court held that this alone could not justify denying bail when the facts did not prima facie attract the offense under section 328 of the IPC against him.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Dharmendra Jagdambaprasad Jaiswar on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and furnish a surety of the same amount.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend the Dadar Police Station every Monday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM for the next three months or until the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
• No Influence on Witnesses: He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• No Tampering with Evidence: He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• No Similar Offenses: He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.
• No Contact with Complainant: He must not contact the complainant personally or through anyone until the conclusion of the trial.
• Address and Contact Details: He must submit documents regarding his permanent address and contact details to the concerned police station and court within seven days of his release and inform the police station of any changes.
• Regular Trial Attendance: He must attend the trial regularly.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail of Rs. 15,000 is allowed for six weeks.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on the specific role of the accused in the alleged offense. By focusing on the contents of the FIR and the lack of direct allegations against Jaiswar, the court granted bail despite the prosecution’s claim that he was absconding. This case also shows the courts consideration of long delays between the alleged crime, and the arrest of the accused.