The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent powers conferred upon the High Court by virtue of provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail during the remainder of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The instant third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Pankaj Damor, who was arrested on 2.10.2016 in connection with FIR No. 182/2016 P.S. Sadar, District Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 394, 397, 347, 201 and 120B IPC.

2. The second bail application of the petitioner Pankaj Damor came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.10.2018.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant third application for bail are noted hereinbelow.

4. One Pinkesh Suthar (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the deceased' for short) went missing on 6.9.2016 whereupon, his father Ramesh Chandra lodged a Missing Report at the Police Station Sadar, Dungarpur on 8.9.2016. The dead body of Pinkesh was recovered from a river, lying in the jurisdiction of the Police Station Rishabhdeo on 30.9.2016 whereupon, Shri Ramesh Chandra lodged a report at the Police Station Sadar, Dungarpur on the basis whereof, F.I.R. No. 182/2016 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 392 and 201 IPC against unknown assailants. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected call details etc. by the strength whereof, finger of suspicion pointed towards the petitioner Pankaj Damor, Sachinpuri Goswami, Sohan Padmat and Nilesh Suthar. Accordingly, all these persons were arrested and were chargesheeted after investigation. As per the charge-sheet, the entire case of prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence.

5. While the accused petitioner was incarcerated at the sub-jail Dungarpur, he submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur stating therein that he was desirous of divulging the truth and turning State's witness. Upon this application, proceedings were taken under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner herein was granted pardon and made an Approver in the case. Since his arrest on 2.10.2016, the petitioner continues to be in custody. During the course of the trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W. 5. He supported the prosecution story to the hilt and underwent prolonged cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel without faltering.

6. While rejecting the second application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner herein by order dated 6.10.2018, this Court requested the trial court to try and decide the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the proceedings seem to have stagnated at the stage of defence evidence whereupon, the instant third application for bail has been moved on behalf of the petitioner Pankaj Damor.

7. Shri Umesh Shrimali Advocate representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the ordersheets of the trial court, which reflect that the prosecution evidence was closed on 6.12.2019. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 3.3.2020 and thereafter, proceedings of the trial have stagnated because of the stalement created by the Covid pandemic. Mr. Umesh Shrimali placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Noor Taki @ Mammu vs. State of Rajasthan reported in; AIR 1987 Raj. 52 and another judgment dated 15.7.2020 rendered by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 846/2020 "Rajkumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh" and urged that though an Approver 'stricto senso' is not an accused and thus, procedure of Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be availed so as to release him on bail, but as per Mr. Shrimali, the inherent powers conferred upon this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can very well be exercised to enlarge the Approver i.e. the petitioner herein on bail. He urged that the petitioner has honoured his part of the bargain, inasmuch as, after being pardoned, he has supported the case to the hilt when examined on oath as a witness for the prosecution and thus, there is no reason justifying his further incar