Karan @ Kannu (Karan Gautam) vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner Karan @ Kannu (Karan Gautam), aged about 29 years, an accused in FIR No.166 dated

03.11.2019, for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC, registered with Police Station Sadar, District Hoshiarpur.

Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution version are that, on 27.10.2019, Karan Saini deceased told his younger brother Sanjeev Kumar,

resident of H.No.121, Mohalla New Jagatpura, Police Station City, Hoshiarpur that his friend Kalpana Dass was coming from Calcutta and he was to

go to Amritsar Airport to receive her. On the same day, Karan Saini along with Kaplana Dass came home at about 7.30 PM but parents of deceased

objected to his having brought a girl who was stranger to the family and did not allow them to stay there. As such, Karan Saini along with said girl

went to Hotel Fine Dine. Karan Saini came home on 28.10.2019 at about 6.30 PM, took some money and clothes, stating that he along with his friend

was going to some places and thereafter, he left. On 29.10.2019, Karan Saini made a telephonic call to his brother informing that he along with his

friend Kalpana Dass, Karan @ Kannu (present petitioner) son of Chandan Gautam and Rahul, resident of Jalandhar had gone together. However, on

31.10.2019, while complainant was present in his house, he was informed that dead body of his brother Karan Saini was lying on the ground of Kotla

Gaspur. The complainant along with family members accordingly went there and saw dead body of his brother Karan Saini lying there with froth

coming out of his mouth. The matter was reported to the police. Proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was carried out. Post mortem examination

was got performed on the dead body of Karan Saini. The complainant made enquiries with regard to unnatural death of his brother and came to know

that Kalpana Dass wanted to marry the deceased but she had friendship with Rahul and Kannu and all three of them in conspiracy with each other

had brought Karan Saini with them on the pretext of going outside and had administered some poisonous substance to him by fraud, resulting in his

death. On the basis of statement of complainant Sanjeev Kumar, formal FIR in the matter had been registered on 03.11.2019. The investigation in the

case started. Petitioner/accused was arrested in this case on 03.11.2019.

The petitioner had moved a petition for regular bail before Court of Sessions at Hoshiarpur, however, his such petition was dismissed by learned

Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 23.06.2020. As such, he has approached this Court, craving for grant of similar relief, which request is being opposed

by the State counsel and counsel for the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

As per prosecution story, petitioner/accused Karan @ Kannu along with his co-accused had administered poison to the deceased fraudulently,

however, admittedly, as per report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, no trace of any poison in the viscera of the deceased was

detected. Therefore, the case of the prosecution in that regard becomes doubtful. The petitioner is behind bars for more than one year. The

completion of trial against him is likely to take some time. The guilt of the petitioner shall be determined during the trial. Therefore, keeping in view the

facts and circumstances of the case, the petition in hand calls for acceptance. The same is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) he shall appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing;

(ii)he shall not give any threat or intimidation to the prosecution witnesses; and

(iii)he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if he has got one, otherwise to furnish affidavit in that

regard.

To address the apprehension expressed by counsel for the complainant that the petitioner may try to abscond, it is directed that CJM, Hoshiarpur or

Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Hoshiarpur accepting the bonds shall ensure that the bond for sufficient heavy amount be taken, which are to be

furnished by persons having sufficient immovable property within the local jurisdiction of the Court. Copies of the title deeds be got attached with the

bonds, making endorsement on the original that surety with regard to those properties have been furnished in the Court.