ORDER : Dr. P. Devadass, J. Petition for bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 307 and 506(ii) of I.PC. @ Section 302 of l.P.C. in Crime No. 143 of 2017. 3. Petitioner is A-3 in this case. 4. This is his second bail petition. His first bail petition has been dismissed on 17.2.2017. There is no bar in Criminal law to file successive bail applications. The principle of res judicata, law of limitation are not applicable to bail petitions including anticipatory bail petitions. The reason being that the bail matters are concerned with securing the liberty of a person which is sacrosanct, [see Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav 2005 (1) CTC 783 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 972 : (2005) 3 SCC 284 : LNIND 2005 SC 141 : (2005) 1 MLJ (Crl) 566 and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi AIR 2005 SC 3490 : (2005) 8 SCC 21 : LNIND 2005 SC 725 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 39]. 5. Any number of bail petitions can be filed by the same accused one after the other. But in case of such successive bail applications the accused must demonstrate 'change of circumstances' since the dismissal of his earlier bail petitions. But it should not be a 'cosmetic change'. The factors must demonstrate some 'perceptible change of circumstances'. Then the Court will have change of mind. 6. Srinivasan and Siva/A-1 are enemies. Bad blood was brewing between them. A-1's friend is etitioner/A-3. On 20.1.2017, at about 10.45 p.m., near Kamarajar colony, Rangarajapuram. near Kodambakkam Bridge, Chennai Srinivasan and Rajesh came. They were cornered by A-1 and his associates. They have attacked them. Srinivasan sustained mortal wounds. Rajesh sustained injuries on his left shoulder. 7. The injured Srinivasan was rushed to the hospital. At his death bed, he gave statement. On the next day. he breathed his last. His last testimony became his 'dying declaration' vide Section 32(1), Evidence Act read with Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. Rajesh had providential escape. 8. In this connection, several persons were booked and arrested. One of them is petitioner/A-3. He was arrested on 21.1.2017. Since then he is counting the bars. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not responsible for the injuries sustained by Srinivasan. lie is alleged to have assaulted Rajesh on his shoulder. 10. 8. In this connection, several persons were booked and arrested. One of them is petitioner/A-3. He was arrested on 21.1.2017. Since then he is counting the bars. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not responsible for the injuries sustained by Srinivasan. lie is alleged to have assaulted Rajesh on his shoulder. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that actually on that day at the time of occurrence, he was present in an hospital, where his wife was admitted and she had also delivered a baby. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner has been implicated in this case. He is in jail for the past 59 days. If granted bail, he will not abscond. He may be granted bail. 12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) filed counter. He also contended that the petitioner is an evil spirit. He is an anti social element. He is an associate of A-1. His past is not good. He is involved in five previous cases. 13. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the so called previous cases are fake cases, put up to put behind the bars under the Preventive Detention Law and in all these cases he has been granted bail. 14. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the bail petition and the averments in the counter. 15. Succinctly, necessary factual matrix has already been stated Let us not duplicate it. 16. As against the petitioner, the over-tact attributed is with reference to the assault unleashed on Rajesh on his shoulder. Out of the five previous cases, four cases are routine law and order cases. They are pending trial. In those cases, he is already on bail. The latest one is Crime No. 144 of 2017. It is also of similar nature. In that case also he was granted bail. It is pertinent to note that all these cases were registered by R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station. 17. Now, the petitioner could not come out of jail because of his incarceration in the present murder case. We have noticed the role ascribed to him. He is in jail for 59 days. Significant work had been done by the Investigation Agency. Thus, there is change of circumstances since the dismissal of his earlier bail petition. 17. Now, the petitioner could not come out of jail because of his incarceration in the present murder case. We have noticed the role ascribed to him. He is in jail for 59 days. Significant work had been done by the Investigation Agency. Thus, there is change of circumstances since the dismissal of his earlier bail petition. In the circumstances, now I lam inclined to grant him bad. 18. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it calls for imposition of appropriate conditions in the bail order. It is also better to keep him away from the scene area. 19. While I was at the close of this order, Mr. J.B. Solomon Peter Kamaldos, the learned counsel for the petitioner appealed that the petitioner may not be asked to cut Karuvela trees as part of the bail condition because the petitioner has to undergo indignation, it is condemning him even before condemning him a convict and it is in violation of his human right and human dignity. He cannot be made a caricature. If such a condition is imposed, petitioner will be put to shame and his head down before his near and dear ones. 20. I was surprised by his such submission. I was further surprised when this sentiment has also been expressed by the lawyers present today in the Court. 21. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner read me a News Item appeared in the Hindu dated 20.3.2017, Chennai Edition, at page No. 4, under the caption 'Novel bail conditions raise questions of propriety'. 22. It is reported in the said News clipping that there is resentment on the learned Judges in Ariyalur and Tiruchengode directing the accused to uproot Seemai Karuvelam (Prosposis juliflora) trees as a condition for securing bail, a Magistrate in Mettupalayam ordered an accused in a poaching case to fill water in troughs created for the Forest Department in the Mettupalayam Forest Range for a month as a bail condition. 23. In the said News Item in the Hindu (supra) Dr. V. Suresh, Secretary, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) with regard to this recent trend of Court's directing removal of Seemai Karuvelam trees remarked as under: "The cutting down of trees demands hard work and you are asking the accused to cut down these trees, which I think cannot be done single-handedly. You need a team for that. V. Suresh, Secretary, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) with regard to this recent trend of Court's directing removal of Seemai Karuvelam trees remarked as under: "The cutting down of trees demands hard work and you are asking the accused to cut down these trees, which I think cannot be done single-handedly. You need a team for that. It would be very hard to cut down 100 trees in 20 days (a condition imposed by the Judge in Ariyalur)". 24. In the very same News Item in the Hindu (supra), Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman, a former Judge of this Court, expressed His view as under: "It is wrong and not in the law to punish someone while granting bail. The Judge can only grant, or refuse to grant, a bail, depending on the gravity of the case". 25. Even today, petitioner before me is innocent because he has not been convicted after a 'fair trial'. He is innocent like any other person till he is convicted in a manner known to law. 'His such presumption of innocence itself is his basic human right." 26. Bail orders are liberty orders. They are passed under section 436 Cr.P.C. (in bailable offences), Section 437 Cr.P.C. (Power of the Magistrate to grant bail in non-bailable offences), Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Concurrent powers of the Sessions Court and High Court) and Section 438 Cr.P.C. (Anticipatory bail). They contemplate passing of bail orders with or without sureties. 27. It is not that while granting bail, Courts have no power to impose conditions. Conditions can be imposed, but it must be 'reasonable'. It must be just and not 'unjust'. It should not be 'in violation of human rights'. 28. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 : LNIND 1978 SC 638 the Hon'ble Supreme Court opened a new vistas in the annals of Indian Human Right Jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that any procedure by which life and liberty of the individual is taken away, abridged must be 'fair', 'reasonable' and 'not unjust'. 29. Imposing condition in the bail order is also a 'judicial function'. The Court is bound to exercise its judicial discretion in a 'fair and reasonable manner'. There is no cut and dried formula. Judge's consciousness is the formula. 30. Bail orders also including orders imposing conditions in the bail order should be passed in a fair manner. 29. Imposing condition in the bail order is also a 'judicial function'. The Court is bound to exercise its judicial discretion in a 'fair and reasonable manner'. There is no cut and dried formula. Judge's consciousness is the formula. 30. Bail orders also including orders imposing conditions in the bail order should be passed in a fair manner. It should not be 'unreasonable', 'unjust' and 'arbitrary', [see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra)}. 31. While granting bail a Court cannot mechanically impose 'unbearable', 'impracticable' and 'obnoxious' conditions [see Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi CDJ 2000 SC 025], 32. In Navaneetha Krishnan v. Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station, Vellore District 2015 (2) MWN (Crl.) 53, with regard to imposition of bail condition, I (P. Devadass, J.) observed as under: "13. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a self-contained Code dealing with bail and bail bonds. While granting bail, Courts have the power to impose conditions. It is with a view to ensure the availability of the accused during investigation and also during the trial of the case and it is not at all for harassing the accused persons. 14. Grant of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion by the Court based on consideration of several factors. Imposition of bail condition is also part of such exercise. It should be based on sound judicial principles. It should not be arbitrary, mechanical. Imposition of bail condition should not be for the sake of imposition of bail-condition. 15. Under the guise of imposition of bail condition, there shall not be imposition of any onerous condition. Conditions which are in the nature of and which could not be complied with by the accused would be like granting bail by one hand and taking it away by another hand. 16. Imposition of onerous and stringent conditions amount to denial of bail. Actually, our bail system is not mainly based on any cash system. If it is so then poor people have to spend rest of their life in jail itself. That is not the objective of a bail 1 system. The object of bail is to enable the accused to send him out of jail with an assurance to return to the Court to put up an effective defence. 21. If it is so then poor people have to spend rest of their life in jail itself. That is not the objective of a bail 1 system. The object of bail is to enable the accused to send him out of jail with an assurance to return to the Court to put up an effective defence. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra), held that any law, procedure depriving a person's life or liberty, which is 'unjust', 'unreasonable' and 'inequitable' militates against the Constitutional mandate in Article 21, Constitution of India. It is also in abridgment of human right of accused persons." 33. While imposing condition in a bail order, Courts should not impose 'odd condition'. Till a person is convicted, he is presumed to be an innocent. Except the word accused, he is a normal person. The phrase 'accused' is not interchangeable with the phrase 'convict'. There is sea of difference between both the phrases. One can be convicted only after a 'fair trial', not a 'mere trial'. A Court cannot put the horse before the cart. 34. Condemning a person before fair trial is as against his human right. If the Court imposes 'odd conditions' viz., to cut Karuvela trees, pour water, do 'parikrama' in schools, hospitals and in certain other places will not be to the liking of the accused. It will not be to the liking of his dear and near ones. Asking him to cut trees in the presence of many persons will make an impression in the mind of public and others that the accused is guilty. He is almost punished even before trial. 35. Even after trial when an accused is convicted, Courts have no power to impose such 'odd' conditions because it is not authorised in the Indian Penal Code or under any other penal law. When such is the position. during investigation or trial stage, when the presumption of innocence of the accused is intact, such 'odd condition' cannot be imposed. It is against law. 36. Courts are under the Law and not above the Law. They are not extra Constitutional authorities on the earth. Nor suddenly descended from some heavenly bodies. In a democratic country based on a written Constitution, where Courts exercise sovereign powers of the State, must pass orders only in accordance with law. It is what 'Rule of Law'. 37. 36. Courts are under the Law and not above the Law. They are not extra Constitutional authorities on the earth. Nor suddenly descended from some heavenly bodies. In a democratic country based on a written Constitution, where Courts exercise sovereign powers of the State, must pass orders only in accordance with law. It is what 'Rule of Law'. 37. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980) 2 SCC 565 : LNIND 1980 SC 168 has advised that the "Judges have to decide the cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions". 38. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others AIR 1981 SC 746 : (1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Crl.) 212, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1978 SC 1675 : (1978) 4 SCC 494 : 1979 SCC (Crl.) 155 : LNIND 1978 SC 215 in the light of Article 21, Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even a convicted person is not denude of his basic human rights, his existence in jail has not animal existence. When even for a convicted person the position is such that the situation will be horrible if a condition like this is imposed on a person who is only an accused. 39. Justice must be tempered with mercy. Those who are incharge of delivering of justice should be more cautious as well as conscious while delivering justice also keeping in mind the common man the little Indian. 40. This kind of odd conditions will be counterproductive. Would be criminals will be embolden to commit crimes, cut the Karuvela trees, come out on bail from jail and go scot-free. And they will be interested in indulging in further crimes. The interest of 'law and order', 'safety and security of the people' will be at stake. 41. I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Mr. J.B. Solomon Peter Kamaldos and the other members of the bar present here. 42. I am guided by law' and also by my (Judicial) conscience. I am not subscribing to the new found ideology of imposing such 'odd', 'onerous' and 'obnoxious' conditions in bail orders. 41. I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Mr. J.B. Solomon Peter Kamaldos and the other members of the bar present here. 42. I am guided by law' and also by my (Judicial) conscience. I am not subscribing to the new found ideology of imposing such 'odd', 'onerous' and 'obnoxious' conditions in bail orders. The present spree or competition among the Judges in our State to impose such bail conditions signals not march of law but an onslaught on human rights, human elements, and human sentiments. We are not for bread alone. Honour and human dignity is above all. Thus, imposing of odd conditions in bail orders is against law. 43. In view of the foregoings, it is ordered as under: (i) Bail granted; (ii) Two sureties, they and the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. (iii) Petitioner shall stay in Vadalur in Cuddalore District and report before the Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police station daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.