JUDGMENT
M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. This is a petition Under Section 482 Cr. R.C. by an accused turned Approver in Sessions Case No, 143 of 1996 State of Rajasthan v. Manu and Ors. Under Sections 201, 302 r.w. 120B and 147 IPC pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The petitioner had prayed for his release on bail on the ground that since he had already been examined as a witness at the trial of the case by the learned Sessions Judge and had made full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or obettor, in the commission thereof in terms of the acceptance of the tender of pardon by him and thus he had complied with the conditions upon which such tender was made and his plea had been accordingly recorded and the trial court had proceeded with the trial of the case, he should be released on bail pending the passing of the judgment in the case. The learned Trial Judge did not accept his prayer and dismissed his application No. 604/97 vide his order dated. 3.7.1997. Hence this petition.
2. The relevant facts, sufficient to dispose of the present petition, are that in connection with the murder of Nathu Kahar deceased FIR No. 101 of 1996 Under Sections 147, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 149 IPC was registered on 6.6.1996 at Police Station, Pushkar Distt. Ajmer. In the course of the investigation of the case six persons including the present petitioner were arrested as accused. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Pushkar, made an application to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer requesting that pardon under Section 308 Cr. P.C. be granted to the petitioner as he was willing and ready to make the full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the murder of Nathu Kahar and to every person including himself concerned in the commission of the said offence. The learned Magistrate examined the petitioner Under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 1.10.1996 and committed the case for trial to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the plea of the petitioner on 16.6.1997 wherein the petitioner is stated to have pleaded that he had complied with the conditions on which tender of pardon was made to him and proceeded with the trial of the case. The trial has yet not been completed.
Mr. Surender Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was behind the bars since 27.8.1996 and since he has already been examined, as PW/1 in the case, on 16.6.1997 and has complied with all the conditions upon which he was granted pardon and was no more required to be kept in prison and the trial of the case is likely to take time, the petitioner be released on bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Mr. Vyas has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Fariyad v. State 1983 RCC 194, and Nur Taki v. State of Raj. 1986 RLR 195 and Delhi High Court Full Bench decision in Prem Chand v. State 1985 Cri. L.J. 1534 in support of his arguments. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the case in the trial court. He has not disputed the principles laid down in the cases relied upon by Mr. Vyas.
3. This Court had occasions to consider a similar prayer of an accused turned approver in the case of Fariyad (supra) where the approver-petitioner Fariyad was in jail since 7.5.1982 and his statement had been recorded by the trial court on 26.5.1983 but the other witnesses were yet to be examined. After considering some decisions and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case this Court held that after the statement of the approver had been recorded and he was not required by the prosecution any more it was not justified to detain him in jail indefinitely.
4. A Full Bench of this Court again examined the same issue in great detail in the case of Noor Taki Alias Mamma (supra) and held that though according to Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. an approver should be detained in custody till termination of trial, if he was not already on bail and that is the general rule applicable in such cases, yet in reasonably exceptional cases wherein it is noticed that his detention has been unnecessarily prolonged he may be released on bail in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The same view has been endorsed by the Delhi High Court in its Full Bench decision in the case of Prem Chand (supra).
5. A study of the above decisions shows that indefinite detention of an approver in jail, after the recording of his statement at the trial and his complying with the conditions upon which he was granted pardon, is considered to be detrimental to his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, a procedure which deprives a person of his personal liberty for indefinite period cannot be considered as just, fair and reasonable established by due process of law. Therefore, there cannot be an inflexible rule that an approver, whose detention in jail for an indefinite period, is to serve no useful purpose and the administration of justice was not in any manner likely to be affected by his release cannot be admitted to bail under Section 482 if not under Section 439 Cr. P.C. The provisions contained in Section 306(4)(b) are, therefore, required to be so interpreted as do not cause violence to the fundamental right of a detenu to ‘personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. In the instant case the petitioner is in detention since 27.8.1996. He has already been examined as a prosecution witness at the trial of the case. He is not stated to have not complied with the conditions upon which tender of pardon was made to him. No purpose to be served by his further detention in jail was brought to the notice of the court. It was not contended before me that if released on bail the machinery of law would not be able to give him proper protection, if his personal security and safety was ever apprehended by any act of adventurism of his confederates. It was not pointed out that the administration of justice would be adversely affected in any manner by his release on bail. I, therefore, find no reasons for not applying the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Noor Taki alias Mamma (supra) for the benefit of the petitioner in this case.
7. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner is allowed. It is directed that Kailash Nath alais Tahal Nath S/o Chotu Nath, Jogi, R/o Ganaheda, P.S. Pushkar Distt. Ajmer, detained in district Jail Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 143/96 State v. Manu Under Sections 147, 302, 201, 120B e.w. Section 149 IPC in FIR No. 101/96 P.S. Pushkar, Ajmer shall be released on his furnishing two surities in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with personal bond in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. The petition stands allowed.