JUDGMENT 1. -On the written application filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the hail application is treated as petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Mr. Garg, pointing out that the petitioner was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 206/98 has turned approver and his statement has been recorded in the trial Court. contends that his further detention is without any purpose and he should be released on hail. He contended that the unwanted long detention of the petitioner would violate fundamental right of the petitioner to personal liberty guaranteed u/Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. He cites the cases of Noor Taki v. State of Raj., 1986 RLR 195 and Kailash Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (1) RCD 75 (Raj. ). 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. His contention is that Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. mandates that a person accepting tender of pardon shall be kept in detention until the termination of the trial. 4. I have considered the above contentions. True it is, Cl. (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 306 Cr.P.C. mandates that the approver should be kept in custody till the termination of the trial. But a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Noor Taki v. State (supra) has held that there may be cases wherein this Court in exercise of inherent powers can release the approver on hail. It has been observed that if there is prolonged detention which would otherwise out-live the period of sentence his detention can be declared to be illegal. Applying the principle enunciated in the case of Noor Taki (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath (supra) directed the release of the approver on bail in a case where his detention was for about 14 months. 5. The case of Kailash Nath (supra) applies on all fours to the instant case. Here also the detention of the petitioner is since 16.5.1998. His statement has been recorded during trial. The prosecution has not come out with a case that, if released on bail, the machinery ' of law would not he able to give the petitioner proper protection. It is also not stated by the prosecution that the personal security and safety of the petitioner was ever apprehended by any act of adventurism of his confederates. The prosecution has not come out with a case that, if released on bail, the machinery ' of law would not he able to give the petitioner proper protection. It is also not stated by the prosecution that the personal security and safety of the petitioner was ever apprehended by any act of adventurism of his confederates. There is also nothing on record to presume that the trial would he adversely affected by the release of the petitioner on hail. 6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the condition that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20.000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appear as and when called upon to do so. The petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******