Allahabad High Court
Shivpujan Choudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 November, 2025
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:205870
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40567 of 2025
Shivpujan Choudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rakesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Shivpujan Choudhary seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0170 of 2025, under Sections B.N.S., Police Station Domariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 15.9.2025. It is submitted that ten accused persons alongwith some unknown persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the relevant rule & regulation has not been complied with while arresting the applicant in this case. It is argued that co-accused Raju Choudhary and Vijapal Choudhary have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2025 (5) SC 799 and judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in case of Dinesh Kashyap vs. State of Uttarakhand passed in First Bail Application No.2528 of 2024 dated 3.4.2025. Submission is that there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant is named in the FIR and he is the main person who has caused grievous injury with hard and blunt weapon to the injured persons namely, Ankit Tripathi and Sandeep Tripathi. It is submitted that injured Ankit Tripathi, in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. before the I.O. has specifically stated that applicant has caused sharp weapon injury on the neck of his brother Sandeep Tripathi, while injured Sandeep Tripathi in his statement has specifically assigned the role of causing sharp weapon injury on his neck by the applicant. It is further submitted that as per the medical report available on record the injured Sandeep Tripathi sustained the two injuries i.e. (i) Sutured wound present on right shoulder, four suture in number and 5cm length of wound and (ii) Sutured wound present on nap of neck 8 cm in length, while weapon used is mentioned as hard, blunt and sharp object. Learned AGA further informs that investigation in the present case is still going on.
5. Thus, specific and separate role of causing grievous injury has been assigned to the applicant by the injured persons in their statements in this case. The medical report available on record corroborates the statement of the injured which has been recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation.
6. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature of injury, gravity of the accusation and quantum of sentence, I find no good ground to grant bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case, at this stage.
7. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
8. The trial Court is directed to proceed the trial and to conclude the trial expeditiously, from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
November 18, 2025
RA
