( 1 ) ON a reference being made by the Single Judge for consideration of the proprietory of grant of bail to an approver who has been now in detention for over two years, and whose statement has already been recorded by the Session Court, this matter has come before the Full Bench. The entire background has been given in the order of the Single Judge, reference to which is advisable for resolving the controversy involved.

( 2 ) IT is, however, unfortunate that at the time of the hearing before the Full Bench, none appeared from the side of the State. This has been in spite of the notice having been served upon the Attorney General, since the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Section 306 (4) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been assailed. Appearance was made on behalf of the accused only, and they contested the release of the approver during the trial as had been done before the Single Judge.

( 3 ) THE brief background is that three persons, Satinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Sarvjeet Singh are being tried in the Court of Sessions in two separate cases under Sections 394, 397. 342 and 34 IPC. They are as a result of two bank robberies committed in the months of June and September, 1981 in New Delhi. The same set of accused was said to be involved in each of the robberies. Prern Chand, petitioner, was also taken into custody-in both the cases in April, 1982, but he has turned approver on being granted pardon. No material progress, however, has taken place in any of the cases, although charges were framed in mid 1983. So far the evidence of the approver only has been recorded and in one of the cases, one further witness was examined. There are said to be about 100 witnesses in each case. Earlier in criminal Misc. (Main) No. 525 of 1983, G. C. Jain. J. had directed on 1 1-7-1983 that the cases would be fixed for recording of evidence at least three days in a week, and every possible effort should be made to expedite their disposal. However, in spite of that, there appears to be no early possibility of conclusion of trials. The petitioner s grievance is that although formally the hearings used to be fixed thrice a week, they often were of short durations as the accused persons have been delaying the expeditious disposal.

( 4 ) AT present the accused are on bail for short durations because of special reasons. Similar bails were allowed to them earlier too at one time or the other. The petitioner too was allowed interim bail for a short while once.

( 5 ) THE petitioner contends that in his deposition, he has made a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge, relating to the offence and to every other person concerned in both the cases and thus has duly complied with the grant of pardon. He, therefore, seeks that he should be released on bail as he has already suffered detention for about 21 years. This has been opposed before us by the accused.

( 6 ) SECTION 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision for tender of pardon to an accomplice. It is provided that with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into or the trial of the offence may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a 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 abettor, in the commission thereof. Subsection (4) of this Section next reads as under :

" (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under subsection (1) (a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent, trial, if any; (b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the