Judgment : 1. This petition is to modify certain condition imposed in the bail order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.no. 2372 of 2013, dated 24.10.2013. 2. Petitioners were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. In Crl.M.P.No. 2372 of 2013. 3. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, they have sought for grant of bail. 4. On 24.10.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted them bail imposing several conditions. One of the condition is that "if the matter is not settled within one month, the bail shall stand cancelled". 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that such a condition shall not be incorporated in a bail order. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the said condition came to be incorporated in the bail order because of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. 8. Time and again, this Court has emphasissed that the liberty of the individual must be jeleously guarded. Arrest is anti-thesis of personal liberty. It is bail vs. jail. Both are not interchangeable. 9. After 1950, on the emergence of Republican Constitution and its Article 21, the Human Rights Law has got a different vein. Bail orders are liberty orders. Because it restores one's liberty which he has lost by his arrest and remand. Liberty of a person can be taken away only by a procedure established by law. Undoubtedly, the procedure must be 'fair, reasonable and equitable'. 10. Considerations for the grant of bail and consideration for the cancellation of bail are entirely different. One is giving liberty, the other one is taking away the liberty. Court will be fast in granting bail provided the accused is entitled to, but Court will be very slow in cancelling the bail. 11. There cannot be implied cancellation of bail. Cancellation of bail must be by an express order. But it should be after giving reasonable opportunity to the accused. 12. In bail orders, 'odd conditions' should not be imposed. There shall not be a condition precedent in the bail order to enjoy the liberty / bail order. Bail order should not be in the nature of swinging a sword always on the head of the accused. But it should be after giving reasonable opportunity to the accused. 12. In bail orders, 'odd conditions' should not be imposed. There shall not be a condition precedent in the bail order to enjoy the liberty / bail order. Bail order should not be in the nature of swinging a sword always on the head of the accused. It is as good as denying him bail. 13. Accused is in jail. He only knows the sufferings of being inside the jail away from his kith and kin. He will try to come out for jail making many assurances. But, if they are not in accordance with law, it cannot be used to rob the liberty granted to him by way of a bail order. The bail condition, namely, 'if the matter is not settled, the bail shall stand cancelled', is of similar nature. It is a bail order with a dagger. It is, 'settle it, otherwise you will go back to jail'. This sort of condition should not be incorporated in a bail order. Even for an argument sake, if the settlement is not arrived at, may be due to the complainant or due to some over doings by the police, there will not be any opportunity for the petitioner to air his view before the bail order is cancelled because the cancellation is automatic. In law, there is no automatic cancellation of bail because bail orders are liberty orders. It will be also as against principles of natural justice. Thus, such condition ought not to have been included in a bail order. 14. In view of the foregoings, the condition that 'if it is not settled within one month, the bail shall stand cancelled' imposed in the bail order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No. 2372 of 2013, dated 24.10.2013 is deleted. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.