M. Murthy @ Mark Murthy @ Nallonu S/O Munimothalaieh Vs. State by Devanahalli Police - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- trade unions act, 1926[c.a. no. 16/1926]. section 2(h): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] settlement under section 18 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 negotiation with union held, in the absence of code of conduct recognising union which enjoys support of majority of workmen, it is not proper to exclude the recognised trade union from the proceedings before the tribunal. tradition of simultaneous but separate negotiation with both unions for sufficient length of time will have a binding force. impugned award was liable to be quashed......accused no. 3 in sc no. 140 of 2008 on the file of the fart track court-v, bangalore rural district, bangalore, is before this court under section 439 cr.p.c. seeking for bail for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 ipc.2. the case of the prosecution is on 13.01.2008 the complainant was watching television in the evening at his residence, he was informed over mobile phone that his brother muralikrishna was assaulted and died on the way to columbia asia hospital. he lodged a complaint with the police on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. against six persons.3. during the course of the investigation, the present petitioner was arrested. after the investigation was over, charge-sheet was laid against accused-1 to 4 for the aforesaid offence and two other accused were dropped. the present petitioner and accused no. 3 moved the sessions court for bail. the learned sessions judge by order dated 24.01.2009 rejected the bail petition of accused no. 2 - muralikrishna and the present petitioner. therefore, the petitioner accused no. 3 is before this court seeking bail.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is not an eye.....

Judgment:

ORDER

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.

1. The petitioner accused No. 3 in SC No. 140 of 2008 on the file of the Fart Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking for bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is on 13.01.2008 the complainant was watching television in the evening at his residence, he was informed over mobile phone that his brother Muralikrishna was assaulted and died on the way to Columbia Asia Hospital. He lodged a complaint with the police on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. against six persons.

3. During the course of the investigation, the present petitioner was arrested. After the investigation was over, charge-sheet was laid against accused-1 to 4 for the aforesaid offence and two other accused were dropped. The present petitioner and accused No. 3 moved the Sessions Court for bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 24.01.2009 rejected the bail petition of accused No. 2 - Muralikrishna and the present petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner accused No. 3 is before this Court seeking bail.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is not an eye witness and the alleged eye witnesses CWs-2 to 5 were concocted after a lapse of 25 days of the alleged incident and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Learned Government Pleader submits that the complaint came to be lodged against six known accused persons. The petitioner was accused No. 3. He further submits that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and CWs-2 to 5 have deposed the overtact by the present petitioner and the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with a knife and caused injury to the neck and also stabbed the deceased and the prosecution has made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged against the petitioner and there is no good ground to release the petitioner on bail.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased won the municipal election. Accused No. 5 also contested the election. The investigating officer has not filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 5 and 6. It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner is the supporter of accused No. 5. According to the prosecution, there is enmity between the accused and the deceased and the accused decided to eliminate the deceased. According to the voluntary statement of the present petitioner, he used a knife in the commission of the offence but after the commission of the crime he threw away the knife at the spot.

6. Solely on the ground of delay in recording the statements of CWs-2 to 5 eye witnesses, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. There is no good ground to grant bail.

7. In the result the petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.