6. It is true that under Section 306 (4) (b) Cr.P.C, an approver will not entitle to be released on bail until the conclusion of the trial. However, this Court has granted bail to an approver in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C vide Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs. State rep.by Inspector of Police, Chennai, reported in (2014) 1 MLJ (Crl) 117, though he had not supported the prosecution during trial.
7. In fact in Munisamy V. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem reported in (1988) 1 MLJ (Crl) 97, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of Section 306 (4) (b) Cr.P.C and has held that it is not an inexorable rule to keep the approver in prison till the culmination of the trial as that would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench observed that interference is called for only in extraordinary situations and granted bail to the approver therein, despite Section 306 (4) (b) Cr.P.C.
8. In this case, the petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2015 and his confession has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and thereafter, he was tendered pardon. He has been examined on 11.04.2016 and he supported the prosecution case on all fours. He has also been extensively cross-examined by the accused and he withstood the cross examination. Thereafter, to keep him in custody, when the other accused are enjoying bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, will be a travesty of justice. Though the victim in this case is a Judicial Officer, this Court should not be swayed by such factors and deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
PARTY: M.Ramalingam vs The State rep by its, Inspector of Police, Kizhaiyoor Police Station, Nagaipattinam – CRL.OP.No.12728 of 2016 – 24.06.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/280291
