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. 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.
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.

(3.)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.