Nagendra Choudhary v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45566 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶1In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 17.03.2026, learned A.G.A. has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State, which is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 381 of 2025, under Sections 119(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶4The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that though in the FIR as well as in the statement of the first informant and the alleged eye-witness Ashish, an allegation has been made that the applicant fired upon the deceased and thereafter the deceased fell down, and then the co-accused Mohit also fired upon the deceased. It is further submitted that though it is mentioned that upon combining several video footages it appears that the applicant initially fired upon the deceased and thereafter co-accused Mohit fired upon the deceased, however, in the actual CCTV footage it is the co-accused Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satish Kumar Tyagi Nagendra Choudhary .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Mohit who is clearly seen firing upon the deceased and there is no role of the applicant in firing; rather, he was scuffling with the first informant, as it is a case of free fight between the parties initially, which led to the incident in question. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no role in causing the death of the deceased, though he was present at the spot. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since

21.06.2025. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. In the counter affidavit filed today, learned A.G.A. has categorically stated that the CCTV footage shows that it is the co-accused Mohit who fired upon the deceased, Rahul Dagar, and not the applicant, Nagendra Choudhary.

¶6Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused, and also taking into account the extract of the CCTV footage as mentioned in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit of the State, a specific role has been assigned to co-accused Mohit and not to the present applicant for causing firearm injury to the deceased, and the case of Mohit is distinguishable from that of the present applicant as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant-Nagendra Choudhary, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment. iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶9Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶10Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

¶11It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶12It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System

(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶13Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685. April 23, 2026 SA (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad