Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 (Bail in Non-bailable Cases)
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 326, 324, 323, 427, 504, 506, 146, 147, 148, 149
3. Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3 and 25
4. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)

1. Application and Case Overview

• Bail Application Under Section 439 CrPC: The applicant, Chandrakant Masanna Gaikwad, seeks regular bail after being charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
• Case No.: 275 of 2021
• Incident Date: June 12, 2021
• Charges: Primarily under Section 302 IPC (murder) among others related to rioting, assault, and use of arms.
• Cross-Complaint: Filed by co-accused, Dhondiba Masanna Gaikwad, with the same police station against the informant and deceased.

2. Incident Details

• The altercation occurred on June 12, 2021, when the informant and deceased Vishwanath Patil approached the applicant’s house, leading to a sudden fight between two groups.
• Accusation: The applicant allegedly assaulted the deceased with an axe, causing a fatal head injury. A cross-complaint under Section 307 (attempt to murder) was filed.

3. Applicant’s Arguments (Para 4)

• Age and Circumstances: Applicant was 21 years old at the time of the incident. The conflict arose from a sudden altercation.
• Injury to Applicant: The applicant also sustained injuries during the altercation.
• Right to Speedy Trial: No progress has been made in the trial since the filing of the charge-sheet in September 2021. There are over 33 witnesses in the primary case and 25 in the cross-complaint, suggesting a long delay.

4. Prosecution’s Argument (Para 5)

• Opposition to Bail: The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, emphasizing that the applicant was primarily responsible for the death, as per the post-mortem report, which attributed death to head injuries inflicted by the applicant.

5. Supreme Court Judgment Referred (Para 7)

• Nathi Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was cited, establishing the procedure for handling cross-complaints. The trial for both cases must be heard, and judgments should be reserved until both are completed.

6. Court's Consideration of Speedy Trial (Para 9)

• Right to Speedy Trial (Article 21): The court acknowledged the prolonged delay in commencing the trial, which violates the applicant’s right to a speedy trial as per the Constitution. This formed a crucial basis for granting bail.

7. Bail Conditions (Para 13)

• Applicant released on a bond of ₹50,000 with conditions, such as reporting to the police weekly, surrendering the passport, and attending the trial regularly. Strict instructions were issued to prevent interference with the trial or witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court granted bail primarily on the grounds of delay in trial proceedings, as it violated the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the lack of prior criminal antecedents and the cross-complaints warranted a balanced approach in deciding the bail application.

Subjects:

Bail, Criminal Procedure, Right to Speedy Trial, Cross-complaints
Bail Application, Criminal Law, IPC, Arms Act, Cross Cases, Speedy Trial, Article 21, SC/ST Act