Ranjana Pandya,J. Learned counsel for the applicants states that applicant No. 1 has died and he may be permitted to delete the name of applicant No. 1 in the memo of the bail application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of bail application. 3. Learned AGA had earlier filed counter affidavit, which was replied to by the learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit today, but the learned counsel for applicants does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is only one injured namely, Akib, who has sustained six injuries. All the injuries are simple and nothing was detected in the X-ray report. It has further argued that there is series of litigations between the parties and this is the motive for false implication. He also argued that criminal history against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 has been explained and now there is no criminal history against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Learned AGA and counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and have argued that according to the City Scan Report, the injured has sustained fracture of the left temporal bone (involving the squamous and mastoid parts) with the fracture line extending till the left parietal bone. It has further argued that the family members of the applicants keep on attacking on the complainant and his family members and they are making every endeavour to eliminate the complainant and his family members. 7. So far as the criminal history is concerned, applicant No. 1 has since died, as regard criminal history of applicant No. 2 is concerned, it has been explained that he has been acquitted in one case and another is the present one. Similarly, criminal history of applicant No. 3 has also been explained that in some cases, he has been acquitted and some cases have been decided. Even otherwise, bail application of the applicants cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they have criminal history. The motive in this case is series of litigations between the parties. 8. Similarly, criminal history of applicant No. 3 has also been explained that in some cases, he has been acquitted and some cases have been decided. Even otherwise, bail application of the applicants cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they have criminal history. The motive in this case is series of litigations between the parties. 8. Having regard to the fact that the accused in jail for more than six months, I find it a fit case for bail, but it would be expedient that certain conditions be imposed on the applicants. 9. Let the applicants-Shano alias Shan Mohammad and Jeeshan, involved in Case Crime No. 161 of 2013, under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323 IPC, PS Kotwali, district Meerut, be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and also subject to the following conditions: 1- The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2- The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3- The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. _____________