JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 24/2013 under Section 420, 406, 201, 120-B RPC, read with Section 5(1)(d), 5(2), J & K Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Crime Branch Kashmir, Srinagar. Investigation stands concluded as proved against petitioner and other accused, and charge sheet has been laid before learned Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Kashmir, Srinagar. Petitioner is alleged to have played a key role in leakage of Common Entrance Test (CET) question papers. He allegedly worked as conduit to supply question papers to some of candidates at the behest of the then Chairman, Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) in consideration of huge amount. Trial is proceeding in the court of Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Srinagar. 2. Petitioner, sometime after charge sheet was filed, came forward to admit his role in alleged scam. He on 29th January 2013 laid an application before learned Trial Judge, signifying his intention to be an approver in the case, make full and true disclosure of events and circumstances within his knowledge relating to alleged scam and to be an approver within meaning of Section 337 Code of Criminal Procedure. Application was allowed on 8th February 2013 and petitioner's statement recorded on 6th April 2013 and concluded on 25th May 2015. Trial has seen some progress during last 1-1/2 years. A number of prosecution witnesses are said to have crossed witness box. However, good part of prosecution evidence is yet to be adduced. 3. Petitioner through medium of instant petition seeks his enlargement on bail. Petitioner's case is that he has honestly and faithfully made true, honest and full disclosure of all information touching alleged scam within his knowledge and has withstood cross examination and therefore, deserves to be let off on bail, more so when he has been in custody for 1-1/2 years. It is next pleaded that petitioner has to look-after his ailing and old parents and school going children and that entire family is exposed to immense hardship due to continued incarceration of petitioner. Petitioner's serious ailment and excruciating pain is another ground urged the application. 4. Respondents, in their objections, highlight seriousness and gravity of offence alleged against accused in the charge sheet. It is pleaded with some detail, methodology employed by petitioner to facilitate commission of offence alleged in charge sheet. Petitioner's serious ailment and excruciating pain is another ground urged the application. 4. Respondents, in their objections, highlight seriousness and gravity of offence alleged against accused in the charge sheet. It is pleaded with some detail, methodology employed by petitioner to facilitate commission of offence alleged in charge sheet. It is stated that, but for petitioner, the main accused may not have been able to execute conspiracy hatched to confer undue benefit on beneficiaries of alleged scam and deprive meritorious students of opportunity to realise their dream to pursue professional course of their choice. It is, however, frankly admitted that petitioner has adhered to promise made and prosecution expects to succeed and bring home guilt to accused on strength of testimony rendered by petitioner and other evidence. 5. We have gone through petition and objections filed by respondents in opposition to petition as also record available on file. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 6. Section 337 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for tendering of pardon to an accomplice. It empowers Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First Class to tender pardon to a person at any stage of investigation or enquiry into, or trial of offence with a view to obtain evidence of such person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to offence on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of whole of circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence. The person, accepting tender, is to be examined in a court of Magistrate taking cognizance of offence and in subsequent trial, if any. The Magistrate, after tender of pardon is accepted and person accepting tender examined, is to commit him to the court of Sessions or Special Judge appointed under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, as the case may be. In terms of Section 337(3) of the Code, such person unless he is already on bail, is to be detained in custody until termination of trial. 7. A bare look at Section 337 of the Code, makes it abundantly clear that person, accepting tender of pardon, cannot press into service Section 497 or 498 of the Code to seek his admission to bail. The person, accepting tender of pardon, is to remain in custody notwithstanding provisions as regards bail to an accused till termination of trial. 8. A bare look at Section 337 of the Code, makes it abundantly clear that person, accepting tender of pardon, cannot press into service Section 497 or 498 of the Code to seek his admission to bail. The person, accepting tender of pardon, is to remain in custody notwithstanding provisions as regards bail to an accused till termination of trial. 8. Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80), dilating on purpose and object of Section 306 (4)(b) [Section 337 (3) of State Code], observed: "It is no doubt true that clause (b) of Section 306(4) directs that the approver shall not be set at liberty till the termination of the trial against the accused persons and the detention of the approver in custody must end with the trial. The dominant object of requiring an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution but to protect him from the possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime whom he has chosen to expose as well as will a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one time friends and companions after he is granted pardon and released from custody. It is for these reasons that clause (b) of Section 306(4) casts a duty on the court to keep the approver under detention till the termination of the trial and thus the provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated." 9. However, it is by now well settled that Section 337(3) of the Code cannot stand in way of this Court to let off person accepting tender of pardon on bail in exceptional cases, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Reference in this regard may be made to case reported as Noor Taki Alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1987 Raj 52 ). In the said background, controversy a regards grant of bail to an approver in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is not to detain us even for a while in view of settled legal position. This, however, does not clinch the matter. In the said background, controversy a regards grant of bail to an approver in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is not to detain us even for a while in view of settled legal position. This, however, does not clinch the matter. It is next to be examined whether case in hand calls for exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and admission of petitioner to bail. The person accepting tender of pardon-"approver" in common parlance, is ordinarily to remain in custody till trial is terminated. However, in exercise of inherent powers, he may be let off on bail in exceptional circumstances. 10. One of such circumstances is not only to ensure that person accepting tender of pardon, adheres to promise made by him and makes honest full and faithful disclosure of all facts within his knowledge. It is pertinent to point out that question whether such person has acted upon promise made by him, cannot be answered immediately after he appears in witness box Trial Court can come to definite conclusion in this regard only after all important witnesses appear in witness box. It is only after entire evidence is brought on record that Trial Court may be in a position to see whether person accepting tender of pardon has adhered to assurance given by him when his prayer to act as approver was accepted. The other more important question relates to safety of person accepting tender of pardon. We have to realize that approver was thick with accused or co-conspirators before he volunteered to turn approver. His decision to help criminal justice machinery to punish guilty, may be appreciated by society, but is bound to be resented by his friends with whom formed conspiracy. They are bound to take him as a traitor and nurse rancour and bitterness against him. There is every possibility that he may be put to harm in the event he is let off on bail. His detention till termination of trail is in a way protective in character to save him from those or someone at their behest who feel let-down by him and may be held guilty of offence alleged on the strength of his testimony. 11. One of exceptional circumstances that may warrant exercise of inherent powers in case of bail to approver could be length of trial and the period for which approver has been in detention. 11. One of exceptional circumstances that may warrant exercise of inherent powers in case of bail to approver could be length of trial and the period for which approver has been in detention. There may be a case where the period, such person is in detention, is more than the period of sentence. In such a case, it may very well be insisted that exercise of inherent powers is called for. 12. In Noor Taki Alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1987 Raj 52 ), a Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court, after scanning law on subject, has held that an approver may, in exercise of inherent powers, may be let off on bail in exceptional circumstances. The question before Full Bench was whether approver can be detained for indefinite period even when principal accused in the case has been released on bail. The question was answered by full Bench as under: "...we answer the question that according to Section 306 (4)(b), Cr.P.C. the approver should be detained in custody till the termination of trial, if he is not already on bail, at the same time, in exceptional and reasonable cases the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail or in case there are circumstances to suggest that his detention had been so much prolonged, which would otherwise outlive the period of sentence, if convicted, his detention can be declared to be illegal, as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution." 13. In the present case, a closer look at averments made in petition leads to conclusion that no exceptional circumstance is made out as must persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and let off petitioner on bail notwithstanding clear embargo by Section 337(2) of the Code. Petitioner has been in custody for 1-1/2 years. His detention cannot be said to be prolonged or to outlive period of sentence. The ground that petitioner is indisposed and suffering from stomach ailment, resulting in excruciating pain, can be dealt with, without admitting petitioner to bail, by directing jail authorities to provide necessary medical care to petitioner. The other grounds urged cannot be taken as exceptional, so as to warrant exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code. 14. The ground that petitioner is indisposed and suffering from stomach ailment, resulting in excruciating pain, can be dealt with, without admitting petitioner to bail, by directing jail authorities to provide necessary medical care to petitioner. The other grounds urged cannot be taken as exceptional, so as to warrant exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner to reinforce petitioner's case for his admission to bail, places reliance on Prem Chand v. State ( 1985 (1) Crimes 99 ; Mohammad Shafi v. State (JKJ Soft JKJ/22205 : 1981 SLJ 362); Ghulam Ahmad Lone v. State (JEJ Soft JEJ/8585 : 1988 SLJ 457); and order dated 22nd November 2014 in B.A. No. 12/2014, titled Waris Shah v. State of J & K and another. The facts of reported cases are different and distinguishable from facts of present case. To illustrate, in Waris Shah's case, approver was in detention for nine long years. Learned Single Judge, emphasising prolonged detention of approver directed his release on bail. In Ghulam Ahmad Lone's case, the Court, instead of granting bail to approver, laid emphasis on speedy trial and directed Trial Court to conclude trial with proper despatch. Same is true about Mohammad Shaft's case. 15. To sum up, we are of opinion that case in hand does not at present call for petitioner's enlargement on bail in exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 16. Superintendent Jail concerned, however, is directed to get petitioner examined by a Gastroenterologist at Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) Soura, so that all possible medical treatment is provided to petitioner. 17. This order shall not stand in way of petitioner to make one more bid for bail on fresh grounds, if any, available to petitioner. Dismissed.