P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD further argument. Hearing is concluded and the order is as follows which shall abide the result of both the above noted applications under S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) ON 13-6-2001 admittedly petitioner was allowed to go on bail in S. R. Case No. 1748 of 2001 involving the offences, inter alia, under S. 396, I. P. C. Pursuant to that order petitioner was released on bail on 14-6-2001. In that respect, the conditions imposed were that (i) petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on every Sunday till submission of Final Form; and (ii) he shall not repeat similar type of offences. Thereafter, it was alleged by the State that on 13-7-2001 petitioner committed another offence under S. 394, I. P. C. which resulted in registration of Capital Police Station Case No. 236 of 2001 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2234 of 2001. Accordingly, the prosecution prayed to cancel the bail granted in favour of the petitioner in G. R. Case No. 1748 of 2001. After hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar on 13-12-2001 passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the accused. As against that petitioner has preferred CRMC No. 10843 of 2001. ( 3 ) SIMILARLY, on 2-5-2001 petitioner was allowed to go on bail in G. R. Case No. 903 of 2001 of the Court of S. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar on the allegation that he attacked the informant being armed with an unlicensed revolver. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner to go on bail and pursuant to that order petitioner was released on bail shortly thereafter. Prosecution filed the application for cancellation of that bail. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar heard that application being registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 216/431 of 2001 and cancelled the bail after hearing the parties on the ground that the condition imposed in that bail order to not to commit similar offences was violated by the petitioner inasmuch as G. R. Case No. 2234 of 2001 was registered against him for the offence under S. 394, I. P. C. allegedly committed by him on 13-7-2001. ( 4 ) THE entire effort of the petitioner is to convince this Court that a dispute between the petitioner's family and a builder has resulted in institution of such criminal cases and in that respect the local police also connived with that builder. Petitioner, however, admits that he did not appear before the O. I. C. /i. O. from 15-6-2001 in accordance with the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge relating to the bail granted in G. R. Case No. 1748 of 2001. Petitioner also admits that G. R. Case No. 2234 of 2001 has been registered against him relating to the alleged occurrence of 13-7-2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no semblance of truth in any of the allegations resulting in institution of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. So far as it relates to non-complying with the direction of the bail order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of his illness petitioner was exempted from appearing in the Police-station by the concerned Investigating Officer with effect from 15-7-2001. ( 5 ) MR. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand argues that the instruction which he has received from the Police indicates that petitioner is a local 'dada' and he indulges in the activities of resorting to violence in furtherance of collection of 'dada Chanda' and to terrorise the people. Accordingly, he argues that when admittedly petitioner has violated the condition imposed in the bail order, the order of cancellation passed by the Court below is found to be genuine and valid and not to interfere with the same. ( 6 ) IN course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner relating to the criminal antecedent and he further submits that when the bail has been granted to the petitioner the liberty may not be curtailed and petitioner is willing to abide by any other or further condition that may be imposed by this Court and in view of that the order of cancellation of bail be interfered with. ( 7 ) ON due consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court finds that petitioner is guilty of violating the terms and conditions imposed by the lower Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail. ( 7 ) ON due consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court finds that petitioner is guilty of violating the terms and conditions imposed by the lower Court while allowing the petitioner to go on bail. After being released from Jail if the petitioner fell ill, he being a local resident of Bhubaneswar and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge being situated in the same township it would have been appropriate for the petitioner to move an application in that Court for exemption from appearing in the Police-Station. The conduct of the petitioner to wriggle out from the situation by bringing out some allegations against the Investigating Officer is equally found not appreciable. Simply because the petitioner has instituted some cases, be it in this Court as O. D. C. or as complaint in the Court below as against the said Police Officer that does not take away rigority of the breach of the conditions. ( 8 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel when large number of criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, without considering that aspect learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have casually considered the bail application under S. 439, Cr. P. C. in connection with G. R. Case No. 1748 of 2001 and G. R. Case No. 903 of 2001. Repetition of crime should always be properly considered because in appropriate case that may be the sole reason, to refuse to the prayer for bail. Grant or refusal of bail should be considered by making a balance between the right of personal liberty of a person and the effect of the order of bail, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was allegedly committed and the conduct and antecedents of the applicant. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, soon after above noted orders of bail the State did not challenge to any such orders, hence a postmortem of such orders is not necessary. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, soon after above noted orders of bail the State did not challenge to any such orders, hence a postmortem of such orders is not necessary. ( 10 ) SINCE the petitioner was granted with personal liberty by granting him bail, therefore, notwithstanding availability of series of criminal cases instituted against the petitioner, this Court offers an opportunity and may be the last opportunity to correct himself and to avoid committing crime and that is why exercising the discretion in his favour this Court set aside the impugned orders of cancellation of bail only subject to fulfilment of the following conditions by the petitioner in each of the cases in which he has been allowed to go on bail in the courts below and that includes G. R. Case Nos. 903, 1748 and 2234 all of 2001. Such conditions are :- (i) Petitioner shall undertake not to commit any crime or to be involved in any other criminal case while on bail by virtue of this order; (ii) he shall appear before the O. I. C. of the concerned Police-station (in which that P. S. Case was instituted) once in every week on Sundays and in that respect the Court below shall fix the time. (iii) In case of necessity petitioner shall move for exemption from such appearance by filing due application in the Court where such criminal cases shall be pending and in such event the concerned Court shall pass appropriate order refusing or granting such permission. (iv) petitioner shall personally and regularly attend the criminal courts on each date in all such cases unless for exceptional circumstances the trial Court shall consider and allow exemption from personal appearance on any given date if in that respect proper application shall be filed by the petitioner. (v) he shall not influence or terrorise the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever; (vi) petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs. 3,000. 00 (three thousand) each in G. R. Case No. 903 and 1748 of 2001 and in the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions such cash security shall stand forfeited without further reference to this Court. 3,000. 00 (three thousand) each in G. R. Case No. 903 and 1748 of 2001 and in the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions such cash security shall stand forfeited without further reference to this Court. ( 11 ) A copy of this order shall be sent to the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar to see that the aforesaid order is complied by the petitioner within a period of two weeks in all the G. R. or Sessions cases pending against him and the sureties thereof shall endorse to such conditions in accordance with law. The Sessions Judge, in that respect, shall take due assistance of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the concerned trial Courts if necessary. In the event of non-compliance of the above conditions by the petitioner in any of the criminal cases pending against him, then this order in interfering with the order of cancellation of bail shall be treated as non-est and thereafter appropriate action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 302/634 of 2001/2001 and 216/431 of 2001. Both the applications under Section 482, Cr. P. C. stand disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.