NITIN CHOUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1465 of 2026

Nitin Choudhary
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhilesh Tripathi, Ashutosh Singh,
                                Naveen Kumar Yadav, Neetu, Pradeep
                                Kumar Yadav, Shiv Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Astha Misra, Avneesh Tripathi, G.A.,
                                Gaurav Dwivedi

Court No. - 68
                 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Dr. S. B. Singh, along with Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for
the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Sri
Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the
record.

The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of
the applicant Nitin Choudhary has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in
Case Crime No. 354 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 34,
504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the
pendency of the trial before the Trial Court. The bail application of the
applicant before the Trial Court has been rejected by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 01.01.2026 and the
applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 01.12.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant
is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime
number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number in
question was lodged nominating the applicant and three other persons
alleging that the first informant being the Proprietor of Vaibhav
Constructions Company had employed the applicant, who happened to be
his cousin brother-in-law as Chief Supervisor entrusting him with substantial
administrative and operational responsibilities including management of
construction materials and coordination with 3rd party vendors. The
                                                          BAIL No. 1465 of 2026
                                2


informant reposed immense faith in the applicant which is alleged to have
been later betrayed. The applicant is alleged to have clandestinely begun
misappropriation of the Firm's valuable construction materials and illicitly
selling them to unknown 3rd parties as serape and creating a parallel supply
chain for personal gains. It was also alleged in the FIR that the applicant in
active connivance with other employees of the Firms (i.e. other nominated
persons) orchestrated the creation of fictitious business entities including
"NS Construction" and "Behari Traders" through which forged and
fabricated invoices were generated and submitted to AFCONS Infrastructure
Ltd, the principle agency responsible for Kanpur Metro Construction
Contract.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR with the above
allegations was lodged on 30.05.2021. The investigation was carried out by
the Investigation Officer. The Investigating Officer issued notice under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the informant seeking supporting evidence on 18
enumerated points but the informant failed to provide any supporting
evidences despite repeated reminders and resultantly a Final Report No. 4 of
2022 dated 04.01.2022 was submitted with the finding that no element of
forgery, impersonation or other incriminating material was found against the
applicant. The report was submitted before the ACP Kalyanpur, Kanpur
Nagar for approval. It is argued that the ACP Kanlaypur arbitrarily refused
to accept/approve the final report for extraneous considerations and ordered
further investigation and further transferred the matter to the Crime Branch
Kanpur Nagar.

It is next argued that the Crime Branch under Inspector Raj Kumar Singh
once again re-evaluated the entire records and reexamined the allegations of
the first informant and after assessing the existing case diary, statements on
record, forensic material and financial transactions concluded that prima-
facie no case was made out against the applicant submitted a closure report
dated 01.06.2024.

It is next argued that despite two closure reports the informant is stated to
have initiated a third rounds of investigation by moving a representation
submitted to the Additional Police Commissioner (Crime and Head Quarter)
Kanpur Nagar. The ACP (Crime and Head Quarter) Kanpur Nagar is stated
to have ordered for further investigation vide order dated 28.05.2024.
                                                           BAIL No. 1465 of 2026
                                 3


Learned counsel for the applicant contends that consequent to further
investigation ordered the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge
sheet dated 24.02.2025 against the co-accused Sachin Kumar, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 34, 504, 506 IPC. The cognizance of the charge
sheet has also been taken on 27.02.2025 by the Court concerned. The
Investigating Officer is stated to have filed a supplementary charge sheet
dated 06.03.2025 against the applicant and cognizance was taken on
29.03.2025 and Case No. 28520 of 2025 (State Vs. Nitin Choudhary and
Others) was got registered. It is argued that the complicity of the applicant in
the commission of the crime alleged is being established on the strength of a
report of the private forensic experts of Dr. V. C. Mishra and Dr. Manas
Mishra. In fact the said experts had submitted three contradictory reports
marked as A, B and C on different dates in early 2023. Reports A and B
contradicted Report C. All three reports stated that the conclusions were
provisional and contingent upon examination of the original documents at
trail. It is also submitted that on earlier two occasions closure reports were
filed by the Investigating Officer taking into account the forensic report
submitted by the Government Expert.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant
has neither been found in possession of any illicit funds, nor has any money
trail been linked to him directly or even circumstantially to the informant's
accounts. The bank statement of the applicant had already been examined
during the first and second investigation and no suspicious transactions were
found. The alleged conspiracy is unsupported by any communication,
meeting or act attributed to the applicant. No offence as alleged in the charge
sheeted sections is made out against the applicant and the charge sheeted
sections are wholly speculative and untenable in law. It is further argued that
the co-accused Suraj Pundir and Sachin Kumar in their statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C dated 05.12.2021 clearly stated that their earlier
testimonies were extracted under coercion by the informant. They confessed
that they were made to sign blank papers under duress and inducement of the
re-employment and salary clearance. They categorically denied witnessing
or participating in any criminal breach of trust or material misappropriation.
The co-accused Anuj Panwar in his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. on 05.12.2021 conferred the same pattern asserting that no scrap
material was ever diverted or sold and that the allegations were false and
intended to settle personal scores between the informant and the applicant.
                                                           BAIL No. 1465 of 2026
                                 4


The officials of the AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd. namely Mithilesh Kumar
(Section Head Ravi Kant Shukla (Planning Head), Amit Singh (Accounts)
and Krishna Jaiswal (Store Keeper) confirmed that induction forms and
authorization letters from the applicant were submitted by none other than
the informant himself and bore his signatures, submitted in his presence and
acted upon in good faith. The payments were made in favour of Vaibhav
Constructions. It is also argued that Indra Prakash, the registered Proprietor
of Behari Traders, in his statement dated 15.11.2021 denied any receipt of
fake or unauthorized bills from the applicant as also any role in material
diversion or fraudulent invoicing. The applicant opened a Company in the
name of N. S. Construction in the year 2020 as he wanted to purchase a JCB
Machine which could be purchased in the name of a Firm or Construction
Company. The loan towards the purchase of the JCB stood duly verified.

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly argues that the present proceedings
against the applicant is vindictive and has been lodged to settle scores. The
essential ingredients required to attract the offence alleged in the FIR are not
made out against the applicant. The charge sheet has already been filed
against the applicant and cognizance has also been taken by the Court
concerned, and as such the further custodial interrogation is no longer
required in the case. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. His
further incarceration is not warranted. He has clear antecedents. Hence bail
has been prayed for.

Per contra, the bail plea has been vehemently opposed by Sri Puneet Kumar
Singh, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, in particular
by submitting that sufficient material exists on record to establish the
complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. Moreover, it is
argued that the applicant is not entitled for any indulgence considering his
conduct. The applicant had approached the Apex Court assailing an order
dated 20.05.2025 rejecting his anticipatory bail. The Apex Court refused to
grant the prayer for anticipatory bail however, granted liberty to the
applicant to surrender before the court below within two weeks and seek bail
vide order dated 24.09.2025. The applicant did not comply with the said
order but preferred Petition under Section 528 BNSS being Petition No.
33067 of 2025 seeking quashing of the entire charge sheet and consequential
summoning order dated 29.03.2025 which too was rejected by the Court.
The counsels, however, could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel
for the applicant.
                                                                                                  BAIL No. 1465 of 2026
                                                                     5


                                    I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

                                    Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
                                    severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
                                    evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-
                                    facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made
                                    out.

                                    Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

                                    Let the accused-applicant, Nitin Choudhary, involved in above mentioned
                                    case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
                                    two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
                                    concerned, subject to the following conditions:

                                    1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

                                    2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

                                    3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
                                    co-operate in the trial.

                                    4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
                                    trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
                                    the court concerned.

                                    In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
                                    will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

                                    April 27, 2026
                                    pks
                                                                                          (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad