HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33249 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Chandrakant Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant bail application, the applicant, Mohit, is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 326(f) of B.N.S., Police Station Marhara, District Etah. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant with the allegation that earlier on 28.06.2025 the applicant had broken the glass of his car and today, i.e., on 30.06.2025 at about 5:30 a.m. he set on fire the car of the informant, thereafter he reached on his roof from where he started pelting bricks and he hit a brick on the head of one Narendra, who was a passerby, on account of which he became unconscious. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that false and frivolous allegation has been made against the applicant that he was pelting bricks and he hit a brick to the injured. The injured in his statement has not made any allegation against him and has stated that when he was passing by from the lane one brick hit his head and he became unconscious. Learned counsel further submits that entire prosecution story as set up by the prosecution is false and fabricated. No such incident occurred and the applicant has not committed any such offence. There is no evidence that he has committed alleged offence and the statements made by informant and other eye witnesses are totally false and fabricated. There is one injury on the head of injured. Nothing has been recovered on the pointing out or from the possession of applicant. The applicant has been made accused with ulterior motive. The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2025, having no criminal history. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer for bail of the applicant have submitted that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishvajit Tiwari, Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Kant Bharadwaj, G.A. Mohit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) there is specific version of F.I.R. as well as of the eye witnesses that the applicant was throwing bricks from his roof and while throwing bricks he hit a brick to the injured-Narendra, who at that time was going to sell milk and the said injured in his statement has specifically stated that when he was going one brick had hit on his head on account of which he became unconscious, thus, the version of F.I.R. as well as the statement of injured corroborates with the statement of eye witnesses and the injury report, thus, the applicant is actively involved in the commission of offence, therefore, his bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the version of F.I.R. as well as the statement of injured corroborates with the statement of eye witnesses and the injury report, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Mohit, is rejected. September 25, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 33249 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad