1. The petitioner, who was treated as an approver in case pending trial in S.C.No.500 of 2005 on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeks his release on bail.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.09.2002 at about 07.30 p.m., the de facto complainant was set upon and attacked by two persons wielding knives, within his residence. The de facto complainant suffered cut injuries to the right forearm at the hands of one of the assailants. The other caused bleeding injury to the left hand of the de facto complainant's wife. The domestic help of the de facto complainant has also suffered cut injuries at the hands of both assailants. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 450, 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the first accused in the case sought a photograph of the de facto complainant from A3 and this petitioner having obtained such photograph from A3 had handed over the same to A5. Further, this petitioner had introduced A4 and A5 to A1.

3. The petitioner has been granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. by learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He was examined before learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in P.R.C.No.103 of 2005 on 11.08.2005 and 02.09.2005. After committal, the trial in S.C.No.500 0f 2005 commenced on 20.02.2012. The petitioner was examined as PW-2 on 03.07.2012 and 13.07.2012. He has been treated hostile by the prosecution and his cross-examination was concluded on 13.07.2012. So far, 24 out of 81 witnesses shown in the charge sheet have been examined. The petitioner is now seeking relief of bail in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that though there was a bar under Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. against release of the petitioner, who has been treated as an approver, on bail, since such provision requires his detention in custody until the termination of the trial, the same would not bar the grant of relief of bail in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the purpose of requiring an approver to be detained in custody already stood served since the examination of the petitioner as a witness stood completed. The prosecution having treated him as hostile, there was not much likelihood of the petitioner coming to harm at the hands of the accused persons. Where the petitioner himself has come forward seeking relief of bail, his right thereto could not be denied on technicalities. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80];

(ii) Prem Chand v. State [1985 Cri. L.J.1534];

(iii) Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan [ 1986 Cri. L.J.1488];

(iv) Shammi Firoz v. The National Investigation Agency [2011 Crl. L.J.1529];

(v) Munisamy v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem [1988 L.W. (Crl.)189];

(vi) Rajesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2007 Cri. L.J. 2687]; and

(vii)A.L.Mehra v. The State [1958 Cri. L.J. 413]

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner submitting that the bar under Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. was absolute. He too would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80] to submit that the ruling of the Supreme Court made it clear that the provisions of Section 306(4)(b) are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that as the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of pardon granted to him, the prosecution would seek his trial for the offence committed by him and once he again partook the nature of an accused, he then would be entitled to seek the relief of bail. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the reason for not moving an application under Section 308 Cr.P.C. was becau