JUDGMENT : 1. This is a matter which causes great concern. The Petitioner initially an accused in a trial, has turned an approver after pardon was extended to him u/s 306 CrPC. It is admitted that his evidence is over and similarly many other witnesses have also been examined. The trial is lingering for the last about 12 years. 2. The Petitioner has sent an application from jail which had been treated as a habeas corpus petition. Thereafter two other petitions were also filed and the present one is the last one in the series of habeas corpus petitions on behalf of the Petitioner. The claim is that even when all the accused in the said trial have been released on bail, the Petitioner is still languishing in jail for no fault of his and the trial is being protracted with ulterior motive. It has been prayed that if the Petitioner cannot be set at liberty he may be released on bail. 3. Sri Surendra Nath Singh, learned Government Advocate has argued that the petition must fall, for it is not possible to grant bail to the Petitioner. 4. Section 306 CrPC contains provisions' relating to tender of pardon to an accomplice. Sub-section (4) of section 306 CrPC reads as under : (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under Section-ion (1)- (a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, in any; (b) shall unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. 5. It is true that in the instant case the Petitioner was himself an accused and he obtained pardon only when he turned approver. Under the circumstances it will be reasonable to accept that the object of requiring the Petitioner or to remain in custody until the termination of the trial is not to punish him for having come to give evidence but to protect him from the wrath of the confederates he has chosen to expose, to prevent him from the temptation of saving his erstwhile friend and companions and to secure his person to await the judgment of the law. 6. 6. But at the same time the argument of the learned Government Advocate that bail cannot be granted to an approver is too extreme an argument to be palatable .As noted above, even an accused who is already on bail can become approver. Consequently an accused's becoming a prisoner should not be a permanent bar to his being bailed out. 7. Detention for a very long period only for the reason that the trial is not over, more so when the detenu is not merely an accused and has become an approver has to be viewed with absolute seriousness. In the instant case the trial is already pending 12 years and the Petitioner is in jail since then. The persons who are accused are already at liberty and, therefore, it appears to be contradiction in terms to detain the person in jail any more than absolutely necessary. 8. The trial Court, is, therefore, directed to complete the trial within 31st of December, 1992. It for any reason the trial is not over by that date, it will be open to the Petitioner to make an application for bail before the Trial Judge who will release him on such terms as he thinks necessary to impose. 9. Sri Surendra Nath Singh, learned Government Advocate has assisted the Court immensely and he was appointed special counsel. He will be paid Rs. 11,00/- as his remuneration. 10. With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is finally disposed of.