JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Since both these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application IA No. 5 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly. 3. Applicants Ved Prakash and Mukesh Sharma are in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 462 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Jwalapur, District-Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Applicants, according to the FIR, sold a property to the informant for Rs.13.75 crores. After the sale, the applicants raised some disputes, due to which some payments were stopped by the informant. Subsequently, the matter was settled, but still the informant was not allowed to take possession of the property sold to him. The FIR records that the applicants and others opened indiscriminate fire, but somehow, the informant could save himself. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it is a property dispute; the matter has already been settled; the applicants may be released on bail subject to the conditions, as may be imposed by the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant Ved Prakash is a convict; his appeal is pending in the court; his conduct is not as such, which may permit him the concession to bail; in this matter, short term bail was granted to the applicant-Ved Prakash, but he did not surrender within the stipulated time. It is only after the intervention of the informant that his custody could be secured again. 8. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the informant. 9. The Court wanted to know as to whether any person was injured in the incident? It is stated that no person was injured. 10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants should be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. 11. The bail applications are allowed. 12. 9. The Court wanted to know as to whether any person was injured in the incident? It is stated that no person was injured. 10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants should be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. 11. The bail applications are allowed. 12. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition: (i) The applicants shall not enter the property, which has been sold by them, in any manner, whatsoever. (ii) They shall not contact the informant, or any witness or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case. (iii) They shall not tamper with the evidence.