Judgment M. A. A. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition u/sec. 482. Cr. P. C. by an accused turned approver in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1996. State of Rajasthan v. Manu Ors. , u/secs. 201, 302 nw 120b and 147, IPC pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The petitioner had prayed for his release on bail on the ground that since he had already been examined as witness at the trial of the case by the learned Sessions Judge and had made full and true disclosure of the whole of circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof in terms of the acceptance of the tender of pardon by him and thus he had complied with the conditions upon which such tender was made and his plea had been accordingly recorded and the trial court had proceeded with the trial of the case, he should be released on bail pending the passing of the judgment in the case the learned trial Judge did not accept his prayer and dismissed his application No. 604/97 vide his order dated 37 -1997. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts sufficient to dispose of the present petition, are that in connection with the murder of Nathu Kahar deceased FIR No. 1 01 of 1996 u/secs. 147, 302, 201, 120b read with Section 149, IPC was registered on 6-6-1996 at Police Station Pushkar. Distt. Ajmer. In the course of the investigation of the case six persons including the present petitioner were arrested as accused. The Station House Officer. Police Station Pushkar, made an application to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer requesting that pardon under Section 306, Cr. P. C. be, granted to the petitioner as he was willing and ready to make the full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the murder of Nathu Kahar and to every person including himself concerned in the commission of the said offence. The learned Magistrate examined the petitioner u/sec. 164. Cr. P. C. on 1-10-1996 and committed the case for trial to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate examined the petitioner u/sec. 164. Cr. P. C. on 1-10-1996 and committed the case for trial to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the plea of the petitioner on 16-6-1997 wherein the petitioner is stated to have pleaded that he had complied with the conditions on which tender of pardon was made to him and proceeded with the trial of the case. The trial has yet not been completed. ( 3 ) MR. Surender Vyas the learned counsel for the petitioner; urged that the petitioner was behind the bars since 27-8-1996 and since he has already been examined, as PW 1 in the case, on 16-6-1997, and has complied with all the conditions upon which he was granted pardon and was no more required to be kept in prison and the trial of the case is likely to take time the petitioner be released on bail u/sec. 439. Cr. P. C. Mr. Vyas has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Fariyad v. State and Nur Taki v. State of Raj. and Delhi High Court Full Bench decision in Prem Chand v. State in support of his arguments. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the case in the trial court. He has not disputed the principles laid down in the cases relied upon by Mr. Vyas. ( 4 ) THIS Court had occasions to consider a similar prayer of an accused turned approver in the case of Fariyad (supra) where the approver-petitioner Fariyad was in jail since 7-5-1982 and his statement had been recorded by the trial court on 26-5-1983 but the other witnesses were yet to be examined. After considering some decisions and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case this Court held that after the statement of the approver had been recorded and he was not required by the prosecution anymore it was not justified to detain him in jail indefinitely. ( 5 ) A Full Bench of this Court again examined the same issue in great detail in the case of Noor Taki Mammu (supra) and held that though according to Section 30i (4) (b) Cr. ( 5 ) A Full Bench of this Court again examined the same issue in great detail in the case of Noor Taki Mammu (supra) and held that though according to Section 30i (4) (b) Cr. P. C. an approver should detained in custody till termination of trial if he was not already on bail and that is the general rule applicable in such cases, yet in reasonable, exceptional cases wherein it is noticed, at his detention has been unnecessary prolonged he may be released on bail in exercise of powers under Seetldh/482, Cr.- P. C. The same views been endorsed by the Delhi High court in its Full Bench decision in the case of Prem Chand (supra ). ( 6 ) A study of the above decisions shows at indefinite ,detention of an approver in jail, after the recording of this statement at the trial and his comparing with the condition upon which he granted parson, is consideration to be detrimental to his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore a procedure which deprives a person of his personal liberty for indefinite period cannot be considered as just, fair and reasonable established by due process of law. Therefore, there cannot be an inflexible rule that an approver, whose detention in jail for an indefinite period is to serve no useful purpose and the administration of justice was not in any manner likely to be affected by his release cannot be admitted to bail under Section 482 if not under Section 439, Cr. P. C. The provisions contained in Section 306 (4) (b) are, therefore, required to be so interpreted as do not cause violence to the fundamental right of a detenu to personal liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IN the instant case the petitioner is in detention since 27-8-1996. He has already been examined as a prosecution witness at the trial of the case. He is not stated to have not complied with the conditions upon which tender of pardon wast made to him. No purpose to be served by his further detention in jail was brought to the notice of the Court. He has already been examined as a prosecution witness at the trial of the case. He is not stated to have not complied with the conditions upon which tender of pardon wast made to him. No purpose to be served by his further detention in jail was brought to the notice of the Court. It was not contended before me that if released on bail the machinery of law would not be able to give him proper protection, if his personal security and safety was ever apprehended by any act of adventurism of his confederates. It was not pointed out that the administration of justice would be adversely affected in any manner by his release on bail. I, therefore, find no reasons for not applying the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Noar Taki Mammu (supra) for the benefit of the petitioner in this case. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner is allowed. It is directed that Kailash Nath Tehal Nath, sb Chotu Nath, Jogi, r/o Ganaheda. P. S. Pushkar Distt. Ajmer detained in District Jail. Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 143/96 State v. Manu u/secs 147, 302, 201, 120b nw Section 149 IPC in FIR No. 101/96, P. S. Pushkar, Ajmer shall be released on his furnishing two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with personal bond in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.