Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Chandrakant Masanna Gaikwad, was arrested on 13th June 2021 in connection with C.R. No.275 of 2021 registered at Akkalkot North Police Station, Solapur, for offences under Sections 302, 326, 324, 323, 427, 504, 506, 146, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution alleged that on 12th June 2021, the applicant and other accused persons assaulted the informant and deceased Vishwanath Patil, causing his death. The applicant was alleged to have struck the deceased on the head with an axe, leading to death due to head injury. The applicant filed a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted that there were cross-complaints: C.R. No.276 of 2021 filed by the co-accused against the informant and others. The trial had not progressed beyond framing of charge, with 33 witnesses in the present case and 25 in the cross-complaint. The court observed that while the applicant was not entitled to bail on merits due to the prima facie role attributed, the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated as the applicant had been in custody since June 2021 with no substantial progress. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the procedure for cross-complaints and the principle of speedy trial from Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar. The court granted bail subject to conditions including a PR bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, weekly reporting to the police station, surrender of passport, and non-tampering with evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The applicant was arrested on 13th June 2021 for offences including murder under Section 302 IPC. Despite prima facie evidence of assault with axe causing death, the court granted bail due to inordinate delay in trial, with only charge framed and 33 witnesses yet to be examined, violating the right to speedy trial under Article 21. (Paras 6-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Cross-Complaints - Procedure - Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1990 Supp SCC 145 - In cases of cross-complaints, the same judge must try both cases one after the other, record evidence, hear arguments, reserve judgments, and pronounce them separately, relying only on evidence in each case. (Para 7) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - No Criminal Antecedents - The applicant had no criminal antecedents and was not at risk of flight, supporting grant of bail with conditions. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case where there are cross-complaints and trial has not progressed beyond framing of charge, leading to violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21.
Final Decision
The court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000 with one or two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including weekly reporting to the police station, surrender of passport, and non-tampering with evidence.
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Procedure for cross-complaints under Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
