1. Petitioner / applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court in terms of S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Code') for quashing / setting aside S.306(4)(b) Cr.PC on being unconstitutional / unreasonable putting restrictions upon the powers of the trial Court to release the approver on bail, with further direction to release the petitioner on bail. It is averred, that the petitioner is facing trial before the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge (with powers under NIA Act) at Jammu in Nagrota Terrorists attack case RC No. 16/2016 / NIA / DLI dated 07.12.2016 arising out of Police Station Nagrota (J and K) case Crime No. 221/2016 dated 29-11-2016 titled State (NIA) Versus Syed Munir - Ul Hassan Qadri and Others, wherein the petitioner is neither criminal nor a terrorist, but an innocent businessman who stands implicated in the case by the other accused persons; petitioner has nothing to do with the acts of the terrorists as he has no knowledge of the plan hatched by the other co - accused persons; A - 1 Syed Munir - Ul Hassan Qadri who was an employee of petitioner misrepresented him in order to secure the vehicle of the petitioner; petitioner had neither any knowledge of such plan nor any intention to indulge in anti national activities as the petitioner is nationalist to the core; that the petitioner was neither in touch with PAK nationals nor had such knowledge of conspiracy on the part of A - 1 to commit attack on army establishment in Nagrota Jammu, wherein, vehicle of the petitioner was secured by A - 1 misrepresenting him. It is moreso averred, that during the pendency of trial, petitioner has been made approver in the said case, wherein, he has accepted to be such witness with the promise extended by the trial court, in pursuant thereto, petitioner has already deposed correctly and truthfully as such a witness before the Ld. Trial Court, as prosecution witness, and therefore, at this stage petitioner is entitled to grant of bail; that the release of petitioner would advance the case of justice, whereas, the denial thereto will defeat the same and result into the grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner apart from infringing the constitutional rights; that in case petitioner / approver is detained in custody till final conclusion of trial, the same will discourage the persons to be as such approver / witness which will hamper the interest of prosecution; the provisions contained in S.306(4)(b) Cr.pc mandate that unless the accused is already on bail he shall be detained in custody until the termination of trial operates as complete bar on the powers of Criminal Court to release approver on bail, however, the High Court has the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.pc to pass any order including release of petitioner / approver on bail to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court, therefore, the petitioner who is behind bar since 02.06.2018 (04 years and 10 months) and even his statement / evidence stands recorded as prosecution witness on 25.04.2022 and 26.04.2022 if he is not released on bail no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in detention, prayer has been made for release of petitioner accused on bail.

2. Respondent / UT has opposed the bail on the grounds, that the present petition filed by the petitioner u/S. 482 Cr.pc seeking quashment of S.306(4)(b) Cr.pc as unconstitutional is misconceived under law and deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost; S.306(4)(b) requires an approver to be kept in judicial custody until the termination of trial if he is not already released on bail, and the object thereof is not