A defendant is entitled to bail when significant delays infringe upon the right to a speedy trial, despite serious charges.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 16^th October 2024 PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Thobde, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Mali, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The relevant details are as follows:-

3. As per the prosecution case, on 12^th June 2021 at about

17.30 hours, the Informant along with deceased Vishwanath Patil and others were travelling in a Swift vehicle. Upon reaching the house of the Applicant-Chandrakant Masanna Gaikwad, there was a verbal altercation between them. It is alleged that the Applicant/Accused No.1-Chandrakant then gave a call to other Accused viz.2. Dhondiba Masanna Gaikwad, 3. Masanna Dhondiba Gaikwad, 4. Ambadas Shankar Koli, 5. Ningappa Shankar Koli, 6. Suraykant Shankar Koli, 7. Balbhim Shankar Koli all residents of Mamdabad, Taluka Akkalkot. The Accused persons arrived there and all of them assaulted the Informant and others. In the said assault Vishwanath Patil died.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Thobde, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant was arrested on 13^th June 2021. He submitted that when the incident in question took place, the Applicant was only of 21 years. He submitted that there are cross complaints. He submits that the Informant, deceased-

Vishwanath Patil and others were travelling in a vehicle – Swift and they had come at the house of the Applicant/Accused- Chandrakant Masanna Gaikwad and some altercation took place which resulted into sudden fight. He submitted that in the incident in question, which has resulted into sudden fight between two groups, the present Applicant Chandrakant Gaikwad also suffered grievous injury. He submitted that therefore the Crime was registered at the behest of co-Accused, Dhondiba Masanna Gaikwad against the informant, deceased and some others i.e. total 7 Accused being C.R. No. 276 of 2021 with Akkalkot North Police Station, District- Solapur on 13th June 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and also under Sections 3 (1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . He submitted that in the present case, there are about 33 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution and in the cross-complaint, there are about 25 witnesses. The trial of both these cases is required to be conducted one after another and the judgment is required to be delivered simultaneously.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mali, learned APP strongly opposed the Application. He submitted that perusal of record shows that the main role is attributed to the present Applicant. He submitted that as per the Post-Mortem report, death is caused due to head injury. He submitted that the material on record shows that the Applicant has assaulted the deceased on head by using axe in the incident in question. He submitted that as the main role is attributed to the present Applicant and as the deceased died due to assault by the present Applicant, the Bail Application be rejected. On instructions, he submitted that the A