ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Liberty is the most ripened contribution of civilisation to humanity. A civilised society is inconceivable without endearment of personal liberty and individual freedom. From the days of yore every wise soul has nourished and nurtured the ideal of liberty and in fact, many have sacrificed their lives for cause of liberty. The progress of tradition, culture and heritage are dependent on protection of individual freedom. Emphasising the concept of liberty the Apex Court in the case of Kehar Singh vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 653 registered thus: To any civilised society, there can be no attributes more important than the life and personal liberty of its members. That is evident from the paramount position given by the Courts to Art. 21 of the Constitution. These twin attributes enjoy a fundamental ascendancy over all other attributes of the political and social order, and consequently, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary are more sensitive to them than to the other attributes of daily existence. It has been said that in retrogression of liberty there is corrosion of soul the very essence of life. Individual liberty is a matter of great as a precious and prized freedom assiduously secured by the Constitution. The sacrosanctity of personal liberty cannot always be sacrificed at the alter of collective good. This being the quintessence of liberty and freedom, the question that falls for determination in the case at hand is whether the learned Additional Session Judge, Sakti was justified, while enlarging the present petitioner on bail in stipulating a condition, alongwith other conditions, to the effect that if another offence is registered against the accused person at the Police Station, Sakti, the order granting bail in their favour would be deemed to have been cancelled under Section 493 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused-petitioner could be taken to custody. This stipulation is the cause of grievance of the present petitioner. 2. Sans unnecessary details, the factual position as has been undroped by the petitioners is that they have been arrayed as accused in connection with Crime No. 200/97 of Police Station Sakti, Distt. This stipulation is the cause of grievance of the present petitioner. 2. Sans unnecessary details, the factual position as has been undroped by the petitioners is that they have been arrayed as accused in connection with Crime No. 200/97 of Police Station Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur registered for offences punsihable under Section 147, 294, 323, 341, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) on the allegation that they had assaulted the victim by 'lathi' and other weapon with the intention to cause his death. After they were apprehended they moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti for grant of bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the material on record admitted the petitioners to bail and while doing so imposed certain conditions, namely, the petitioners would not tamper with the witnesses; would appear personally in court on each date of hearing; and would not pickup quarrel with the informant. Apart from these conditions, it was also stipulated in the order that if any further case is registered against the petitioners at Sakti Police Station the order granting bail would automatically stand cancelled and they would be taken to custody as if there has been cancellation of the order enlarging them on bail as contemplated under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners, impugning the aforesaid order containing the said condition has contended that stipulation of such a condition is beyond the jurisdiction of the court as such condition is not permissible under the ambit and sweep of Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation of bail is a deliberate and conscious judicial act and the court while cancelling a bail order granted in favour of an accused has to take into consideration many a factor and it can not be left to the police authorities or to private individuals who by lodging a report or registering a report could take the benefit of the deeming consequence stipulated in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the Court could have stipulated that in violation of the conditions stipulated therein, or if there would have been any abuse of the liberty conferred upon the accused then it would have been open either to the prosecution or to the informant or other aggrieved party to move the competent court for cancellation of bail but by stipulating a condition of the above nature the court has abdicated its power which is not only exceptional but also impermissible. 4. Resisting the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Gangrade, learned P.L. for State has urged that no fault can be found in the stipulation incorporated in the order granting bail as such a condition has been imposed taking into consideration the nature of the offence and to see that the accused persons conduct themselves with propriety and do not misuse or abuse their conditional liberty to impede a fair trial and gain mileage because of their freedom. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is essential to reproduce Section 439 (1) of the Code which reads as follows : 439 (1) Special Powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail: A High Court or Court of Session may direct: (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified Sub-Section (3) of Section 437 may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that Sub-Section : (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified : Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. From the aforesaid provision it is quite clear that conditions can be imposed under certain circumstances with definite purposes. From the aforesaid provision it is quite clear that conditions can be imposed under certain circumstances with definite purposes. Conditions can be imposed to secure the attendance of the accused who has been granted bail and to ensure that such person who has been at liberty by the order of the court does not abuse the same by indulging in similar type of offences. The Court also can impose certain other reasonable conditions if the interest of justice so warrants. While the power has been conferred on the Court to impose conditions while enlarging the accused on bail, the court has to keep itself alive to the proposition that a balance has to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and his availability for the purpose of investigation and trial. 6. The concept of bail which has been introduced by social design is with the purpose to avoid pretrial detention. The concept has been evolved, as has been observed by the Apex Court is the case of Kamlapati Tripathi Vs State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 777 to effect a Synthesis of the two basic concepts of human value, namely, the right of the accused to enjoy his personal liberty, and the public interest on which a person is released with the condition or the surety to be produced in the Court to stand the trial. This being the concretised concept of bail having been tested by the passage of time, the imposition of condition at the time of granting of bail has also received close scrutiny or many as occasion. In the case of Hussainara Khatton and ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1360 the Apex Court expressed its concern and anguish over the concept of security in the prevalent bail system. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sheik Layak Vs. State 1981 Cri. LJ. 954 has observed that an essential requirement in the imposition of any condition is that it should result in minimum of interference with personal liberty of the accused and the rights of police to investigate in the case. Imposition of conditions while granting bail can have many facets. A condition can be unreasonable and snack of arbitrariness. It may in a given situation, totally tilt the balance in favour of the prosecution. Imposition of conditions while granting bail can have many facets. A condition can be unreasonable and snack of arbitrariness. It may in a given situation, totally tilt the balance in favour of the prosecution. In certain other situation, imposition of a condition can be absolutely harsh and tantamount to refusing the bail as it would be extremely difficult on the part of the accused to comply with the same. Instance are not rare where superior courts have Interfered in conditions imposed by the Court granting bail on the ground that such conditions are beyond the sweep and purview of Section 437 (3) of the Code. At this juncture, I may refer to a decision rendered in the case of Ramnath Sharma Vs. Khalll Khan 1988 Allahabad Law Journal wherein the court took exception to the condition imposed by the court granting bail by directing the accused to handover charge of his office within ten days, as this condition was treated as a bargain to quote with profit: grant of bail is not like a commodity to be bargained about the court with accused. It is clearly beyond the competence of the courts to indulge in such bargaining while granting bail to the accused. The accused cannot be subjected to any condition other than that contemplated in Section 437 (3) Cr. P.C. The courts must refrain from contracting a bargain with the accused while granting bail. A duty is cast upon courts to ensure that the condition imposed on the accused is in consonance with the intendment and provisions of section 437, Cr. P.C. I may also refer to a decision of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Afsar Khan vs. State by Girinagar Police, Bangalore 1992 Cri.LJ. 1676, where in it has been held as under: While granting bail, insisting an good behaviour or prompt attendance, executing personal bond further to safeguard his good behaviour and personal attendance may be supported by insisting upon additional sureties as the Court deems fit. But insisting upon local sureties or cash security is incorrect and indirectly results in denial of bail granted earlier. A reading of the entire chapter which deals with the provisions relating to bail, does not say that when a person is released on bail, the court can also insist upon him to give cash security. But insisting upon local sureties or cash security is incorrect and indirectly results in denial of bail granted earlier. A reading of the entire chapter which deals with the provisions relating to bail, does not say that when a person is released on bail, the court can also insist upon him to give cash security. While the court exercises its discretion whether it is under section 437 or 438 or 439, it shall exercise the same properly and not in an arbitrary manner. The discretion exercised shall appear a just and reasonable one. It is true that no norms are prescribed to exercise the discretion. Merely because norms are not prescribed for the court to exercise discretion under section 437, 438 or 439 that does not mean the discretion shall be left to the whims of the Court. Guiding principle shall be with sound reasoning and in no way opposed to any other law. While administering justice, it is the duty of the court to see that any order to be passed or conditions to be imposed shall always be in the interest of both the accused and the State. The conditions shall not be capricious. On the other hand, it shall be in the aid of giving effect to the very object behind the discretion. At this juncture, I may also refer to the decision in the case of Kesav Narayan Banerjee Vs. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1666 wherein the Apex Court held that the decision imposed for furnishing security of one lakh to cash or in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank by the High Court was excessively onerous and virtually amounted to denial of bail. 7. From the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is clearly perceptible that the court has the jurisdiction to impose conditions but while doing so the court has to see that the conditions must have nexus with the investigation or they are intended to prevent a recurrence of the same offences. Conditions must have sanction of law as well as reasonableness. A condition cannot be imposed in anticipation. A condition cannot be presumptuous and speculative. In this context I may refer a decision rendered in the case of Bijoyanende Swain and another Vs. Conditions must have sanction of law as well as reasonableness. A condition cannot be imposed in anticipation. A condition cannot be presumptuous and speculative. In this context I may refer a decision rendered in the case of Bijoyanende Swain and another Vs. the State (1996) 11 C.C.R. 214 wherein it has been held as follows : Though an accused prays for bails he is not at the mercy of the court. Courts are to function according to law and dispense justice which has to be tampered with compassion and mercy. But that does not necessarily mean that an accused has to be at the mercy of the Court to bind himself by the averment he makes in an application for bail and the court would assume the role to bargain to impose any condition. In the case at hand the heart of the matter is whether stipulation of the condition as has been stated earlier has the sanction of law. Imposition of a condition or a stipulation having a futuristic spectrum has to flow from the provisions enshrined in the code and must reflect prudent exercise of judicial discretion. As stated earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the stipulation/condition inherent in the order which engulfs the process of cancellation of bail by a deeming prescription though the concept of cancellation of bail operates in a different and distinguishable sphere. An order granting bail becomes vulnerable and incurs the liability of cancellation if it is granted improperly and injudiciously or there are overwhelming supervening circumstances which warrants the cancellation of the order. In this context, I may refer to the decision rendered in the case of State through the Delhi Administration Vs. Sanjay Gandhi A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 961 wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court expressed thus: Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a ball granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances. It would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances. It would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. Reiterating the similar view, the Apex Court in the case of Daulatram & others Vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) S.C.C. 349 held as under: Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the ground for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is plain as day that many factors are taken into consideration while directing cancellation of bail and it is not cancelled in a mechanical manner. There has to be application of mind and consideration of all relevant circumstances. Infact, it is the result of an independent proceeding having different parameters. 8. Quite apart from the above, before cancellation of bail granted in favour of an accused it is absolutely essential that the accused should be afforded an opportunity of hearing a privililege conferred cannot be taken away without hearing. If by the mere registration of crime, it would entail a consequence of cancellation of bail, it would be the epitome of violation of natural justice and embodiment of unreasonableness. 9. If by the mere registration of crime, it would entail a consequence of cancellation of bail, it would be the epitome of violation of natural justice and embodiment of unreasonableness. 9. Tested on the anvil or the aforesaid principles, the impugned order is indefensible to the extent it stipulates that on the registration of an offence at Police Station Sakti, the order enlarging the accused persons on bail, would be deemed to have been cancelled under Section 439 (2) of the Code and they could be taken to custody. Accordingly the said stipulation is set aside. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the accused-petitioners abuse their liberty and get themselves involved in any crime, it would be open to he prosecution or the party to move the competent court for cancellation of bail. 10. Resultantly, the application is allowed and the condition as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti is modified to the extent indicated above. Application allowed