HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1465 of 2026 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 Versus 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 Nitin Choudhary .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 BAIL No. 1465 of 2026 5 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad