JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-applicant has moved this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. from jail. As the accused-applicant was unrepresented Shri G. K. Garg was appointed to represent him under the Legal At i Programme. 2. Accused-applicant Rajan Pandey is facing trial in cases No. 490/1975 and 857/75 for the offences under Sections 171, 468, 469, 471, 102B, 473, 420 and 511, IPC. He is being tried alongwith other persons. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-applicant that pardon has been granted to him with respect to all these offences, and that as the accused-applicant is suffering from depression and has been advised for change of environment, he may be released on bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor was heard and he opposed the application made by the learned counsel for the accused-appiicant. Section 306(4)(b) states that every person accepting tender of pardon made under sub-section (1 ) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant places reliance on A. L. Mehra v. State (AIR 1958 Pun 72), in which it has been held that sub-section Page No. 233 (3) of S. 337 declares that an approver, unless he is already on bail, shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. The object of requiring an approver to remain in custody until the termination of the trial is not to punish the approver for having agreed to give evidence for the State, but to project him from the wrath of the confidence he has chosen to expose, to prevent him from the temptation of saving his erstwhile friends and companion and to secure his person to await the judgement of the law. Hence, the argument, that if an accused can be released on bail, there is no reason why a person who has been granted a. pardon should not be accorded a similar facility, is devoid of force, for the provisions of law cannot extended by analogy. 5. The medical certificate of Dr.G.B. Advani states that the accused-applicant is suffering from depression. It is further stated in the certificate that charge of environment will help to improve him. 6. 5. The medical certificate of Dr.G.B. Advani states that the accused-applicant is suffering from depression. It is further stated in the certificate that charge of environment will help to improve him. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that it has never been the intention of the Legislature to punish a person who has tendered pardon by way of keeping him in custody, is devoid of forces. The analogy cannot in any way go against the mandatory provisions of law. Section 306(4)(b), Cr. P.C. states in clear terms that a perean who has accepted tender of pardon shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. In this view of the mandatory provisions of law the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant cannot be accepted. The application of the accused-applicant is accordingly dismissed. The accused and the jail authorities may be informed accordingly. *******