Jharkhand High Court
Munwar Affaque @ Munawar Afaque Age 23 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 15 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:28455]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.646 of 2024
------
Munwar Affaque @ Munawar Afaque age 23 years old, son of
Afaque Ahmad, resident of Behind Syndicate Building, Kanta Toli
Chowk, P.O- Kanta Toli, P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to release the petitioner on bail, who became an
approver under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
connection with S.T. Case No.783 of 2022 corresponding to Sukhdeonagar
P.S. Case No.238 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections
302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 27, 35 of the Arms
Act in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
accused of the said case. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner stated that he wants to be an approver;
subsequently, the petitioner herein, filed an application for pardon and such
petition after being allowed, the petitioner became an approver. Vide order
[2025:JHHC:28455]
dated 09.08.2023, the petitioner was granted pardon under Section 307 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that after the petitioner
became the approver, he has been examined as Prosecution Witness No.26.
It is then submitted that since the petitioner has turned as an approver, he is
no more an accused person of the case. Therefore, it is submitted that
Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
pressed into service for releasing him on bail.
4. Relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Danish Ali Jamaluddin Ahmed Vs. The State of Maharashtra through
DCB CID, Mumbai 400 001 reported in 2023:BHC-AS:34991, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, the approver was
granted bail by the High Court. It is also submitted that the trial is at the
stage of argument now. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be
admitted to bail.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand submits
that it is the mandate of Section 306(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
that the approver be detained in custody until the termination of the trial,
unless he is already on bail. But Section 306(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is applicable only in case of tender of pardon to an accomplice at
the preliminary stage, by a Magistrate before commitment of a case but in
this case, the pardon was tendered after commitment of the case in exercise
of the power under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence,
restriction of the detaining the approver in custody until the termination of
the trial is not applicable to this case.
6. In support of his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of
Rajkumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2020 SCC OnLine
[2025:JHHC:28455]
Chh 109 and submits that in that case, thed Single Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court has observed in para-19 that since the
mandate under Section 306(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
continuation of the approver in custody till the termination of the trial,
would not be applicable to tender pardon under Section 307 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, hence, the learned Sessions Judge would have
jurisdiction to release such accused on bail, if found appropriate. It is next
submitted that the petitioner could have approached the learned Sessions
Judge concerned instead of filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
before this Court.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent
to mention here that, it is without any doubt, the mandate of continuation
of the approver in custody till the termination of the trial, if at the time of
turning approver, the approver is not on bail in case of tender of pardon to
an accused under section 306 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but
such mandate is certainly not attracted to an approver, who has been
tendered pardon in exercise of the power under Section 307 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The question then arises that after tendering of pardon,
as the approver ceases to be an accused person of the case, can he be
granted bail in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure?
8. True it is that when the court exercises the power under Section 307
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for tendering pardon to an accused, the
bar for releasing the approver if he is not already on bail till the conclusion
of the trial as contained in Section 306(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is not applicable, he can be released on bail by the learned
[2025:JHHC:28455]
Sessions Judge. But in the absence of any express provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure for release of such approver on bail, the High Court can
consider the application for releasing such approver on bail in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the deposition of the petitioner-
approver has already been recorded and he has supported the case of the
prosecution. The trial is in the stage of argument. The petitioner has been in
custody since 07.06.2022 as mentioned in para-13 of this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the prayer of the
petitioner is allowed.
11. The petitioner namely Munwar Affaque @ Munawar Afaque shall be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees
Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi in connection with
S.T. Case No.783 of 2022 corresponding to Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.238
of 2022 with the condition that he shall appear before the trial court as
and when directed by the trial court and also furnish his mobile number
and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an
undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial
of the case and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade such person from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police
Officer and that the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence.
12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
[2025:JHHC:28455]
13. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A.
No.4703 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 15th of September, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
