ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan and R.P. Gupta, JJ. 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.98 whereby Biharilal Khatri has been detained in prison and for his being released he produced two sureties, viz., Ramavtar and Jaganath on 27.10.98 but he was sent to the prison for not producing sureties on 24.10.98 in the proceedings under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But on the basis of some oral order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the detenu is a habitual offender and for maintaining peace till the ensuing assembly elections, he should not be released on bail and on his being found as a habitual offender on the basis of the history-sheet, his bail was refused. This order is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction including the writ in the nature of habeas corpus as the detenu despite his offering the bail-bonds and sureties was not released. 2. This Court on 6.11.98 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner issued notices to the respondents which were accepted by Shri A.K. Gohil, Dy. Advocate General on behalf of the respondents and the matter was directed to be put up on 10.11.98. No reply has been filed till today. Shri R.S. Jha, Dy. Advocate General submitted that though the order was communicated to the respondents but none has approached him for filing reply. 3. However, Shri Jha submitted that the order passed u/s. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is appeal u/s. 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such the petitioner has got the alternative remedy instead of approaching this Court. 4. The right to liberty is a fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that cannot be lightly curtailed or diluted by any authority rather the authorities are protectors of such a right. The impugned order indicates that the person is not allowed to be released on bail even on his furnishing sureties which is permissible u/s. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The basic reason for non-acceptance of the sureties is the ensuing assembly election in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not a valid reason. The impugned order indicates that the person is not allowed to be released on bail even on his furnishing sureties which is permissible u/s. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The basic reason for non-acceptance of the sureties is the ensuing assembly election in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not a valid reason. The moment the sureties and/or bail-bonds of a person are refused to be accepted on the flimsy grounds, as in in the present case, the detention becomes without authority of law. 5. In view of above, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a case where the detenu is entitled for being set at liberty as the liberty should not be curtailed in the fashion, as has been done under the impugned order. The petition deserves to be succeed. It is accordingly allowed in part to the extent that the detenu shall be released forthwith on his executing a personal bond together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bilaspur. 6. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we do not impose any exemplary cost except that a little caution be issued to the concerned authorities for acting according to law having in mind the rights of the citizen as guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution.