N.M. KASL1WAL, J.—This is an application for releasing from the custody by one Lallu alias Prem, who has been granted pardon as an approver in a case under sec. 302 IPC pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City. After the statement of the petitioner was finally recorded during the trial on 2nd September, 1978, he moved an application that he had complied with all the conditions of pardon and his statement has also been recorded during the course of inquiry before the Magistrate and also during the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there remains nothing to be done by him, he should be released on bail inasmuch as only 18 witnesses of the prosecution have been examined during the last three years, and, 54 prosecution witnesses have yet to be examined which may take a very long time, and, specially when all the three accused persons have been released on bail, there was no justification for keeping him in custody any longer and an order should be given to release him forthwith. A prayer in this regard was made by the petitioner but the learned trial Court by its order dated 20th October, 1978, dismissed the same, as such the petitioner has come before this court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under sec. 397 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is admitted by the prosecution that the petitioner has not violated any conditions of pardon and he has already remained in jail for a period of three years and there is no chance of his being released still for a period of three to four years as 54 prosecution witnesses have yet to be examined. He has further contended that the accused persons who are the main culprits in the case have been released on bail and it would be very harsh and unjust if the petitioner who has helped the State in bringing out the truth before the Court, will have to remain behind the bars without any just cause. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner has appealed that this court should pass an order for releasing the petitioner in exercise of its inherent powers. Learned counsel has cited Mohammed Abdul Majid vs. Emperor(l), Karupa Servai vs. Kundaru alias Muniandi Thevan (2) and A.L. Mehra vs. The State (3).

3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has argued that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. Provisions of sec. 306(4)(b) clearly provides that every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-sec. (1) shall unless he is already on bail be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. He, therefore, argued that the petitioner was not on bail at the time of accepting a tender of pardon and as such there is no option but to detain him in custody until the termination of the trial. He has placed reliance on Pajerla Krishna Reddi vs. State (4) and Ayodhya Singh vs. State (5).

4. Inspite of all sympathies with the petitioner, I feel myself bound by the clear mandate of the legislature and the Judicial pronouncement given in this regard. In Mohammed Abdul Majids case (supra) Peroival K.J.C. has taken the view that sec. 337 of the Cr.P.C. (which is analogous to the provisions of sec. 306 of the Cr.P.C., 1973) being a special section dealing with approvers controlled the general powers of granting bail under section 498 Cr.P.C. Though Roop Chand Bilaram A.J.C. had taken a contrary view and had held :

"I can also find nothing in this clause or in any others provisions of the code to suggest that the Legislature wished to favour accomplices who were on bail before their pardon or to place them on a better footing than those who had not got such pardon. If the admission of guilt puts an end to the privilege of being permitted to remain on bail it equally applies to both, and if special circumstances exist which make it highly improbable that an accomplice will not abscond or be tempered with and entitle one who was released on bail before his pardon t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document