Karan Kumar Alias Khabu Alias Khanna v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 Karan Kumar @ Khabu @ Khanna .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Goria, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.75, dated 21.04.2024, under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 and 27/54/59 of Arms Act (Sections 148, 149, 120-B and 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Raj Kumar. It was alleged that they were 05 brothers and one of his brother is George @ Katta, who was working as an Electrician. On 20.04.2024, he went from the house at about 8:00 PM and thereafter he did not return. On 21.04.2024 at about 9:30 AM, he received an information that a dead body of his brother, namely, George @ Katta, was lying in a vacant plot. On

hearing, he reached at the place where number of people gathered. On reaching, he saw that face and head of his brother had been hit with sharp edged weapon. It was alleged that his brother George @ Katta was killed by some unknown person by causing injuries with sharp edged weapons. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. On 22.04.2024, supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, wherein he named 11 accused including the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 21.04.2023. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial Court commenced.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar praying for the grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.12.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the case of prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, however, the petitioner has been roped in the present case on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is behind bars from the date of his arrest, i.e. 21.04.2023, however, there is no progress in the trial. He has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Manjit Singh @ Mann and Jagpreet @ Jaggu have already been granted bail by this Court

vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-55732-2024 and CRM-M2424-2025 and thus, case of the petitioner is at par with that of the coaccused. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, when the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has played an active role in committing the offence. He has submitted that no case for the grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. However he has endorsed the fact that co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioners. 5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidences. The petitioners have been arrayed as an accused on the supplementary statement of the complainant. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 20 days as on 15.09.2025. it further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Admittedly, the co-accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail on parity.

8.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) 16.09.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No