(Cr. M. P. Nol3’5972011) W WW EW40H§WWW, WWWHE‘OHWW k ‘13 “" ... 0"! u"... 907w ' i Mg/ P.. Q’wi @ Wm EOWOW WWWW W W Eowo 311%? 1H m am 482/?{ouow'o 1§73 " n HiGi-i COURT 6F CHHATTI$GARH : BIL ’ SPUR Sinuie Bench: Hon’bife $hri Manindra Mohan Shrivaaztaavag J, CLMP. N6.337i2m1 PETiTiQNER Smt. Reshma Versus RE$PONDENT State of Chhattisgarh APPLiCHlTiL‘JN UNDER $ECTI0i‘i 432 OF THE COEE OF CRiWIiNAL PR6CEEURE Presenf: - Shri C.K.Kesharwani, counsei far fhe peiifio’rier. Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panei Lawyer for the State. k ORDER (Passed on ...!.?.f{.‘...Juiy, 2011'; This applicatjon has been flied by the petitioner praying for extension of .. period of protective umbreiia granted to the petitioner vicie order dated 23/10/10. 2. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appiied for grant of anticipatory baii which was aiiowed by this Court vide order dated 23i1‘D/1‘0. it was ordered that in the event of arrest ‘of the appiicant — $mt. C” K“ Reshma, shaii be reieased on baii on furnishing a personai bond of Rs.10,000i~ atong with one surety for the iike amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Certain conditions Were imposed and it was ordered that the order shaii remain in force for a period of 6'0 days and the appiioant shaii be at ifoerty to appiy before the concerned triai Court i special Court for grant of reguiar baii within the period of 60 days. Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that though the appitcation was required to move before the Court beiow for grant of r‘eguiar bait within 6i?! i days, the petitioner couid not move the appiication for grant of regular baii before the Cour-i beiow as the petitioner did not have proper knowiedge of the iegai requirements and as her husband was out of station, she, being a iady, couid not move the Court beiow for grant of regular baii. ‘3. On the other hand, learned Sitate counsei submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory baii on the condition that the petitioner may appiy for grant of regular bail within a period of 60 days but the petitioner misused the liberty granted to her and no application for grant of regutar ball has been moved by the petitioner within the time stipulated. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is therefore, not entitled to extension of time. Further submission of learned State counsel is that whatever be the submission, once the petitioner has failed for apply for grant of regular bait, it is impermissible under the law to extend the period. 4. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vlde order dated 23i10i1‘0 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No.787f1‘0. Though the protective umbrella was granted to the petitioner for a period of 60 days, in the application, it has been m submitted that the petitioner, being a lady was not aware of the legal procedure and as her husband was out of station, she could not move the application for grant of regular bait. 5. Normally, this Court is not inclined to extend the period of protective umbrella. However, in appropriate cases, if the circumstances so exist, there is no prohibition under the law to extend the period of protective umbrelia. The petitioner is a iady and it has been stated in the application that as her husband was out of station, she couid not move the Court beiow for grant of reguiar baii within the time stipuiated. a b. i am not inciine'd ‘to accept the submission of iearned State counsei thai the protective umbreiia could not be extended under any circumstances in somewhat simiiar situation, this Court has extended the period of protective umbreiia in the case of S'mt. Kusumiata v. $tate of Ch‘nattisgar’n in CtMP. No.8Q3l’iO decided on 1/1210, and granted extension of protective umbreita. Therefore, t am not inciined to accept the submission of teamed $tate counset that extension of protective umbreiia is not permissibie. 7. in View of the aforesaid circumstances, i am of the opinion that it wouid be proper in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity to the petitioner, being a iady, to appear betore the Court beiow and appiy for grant of reguiar baii. 8. Accordingiy, it is directed that the petitioner shaii appear before the concerned Court on 3i8i‘2011‘ and may appiy tor grant of teguiar haii. The concerned Court shaii consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with iaw on petitioner‘s appiication for grant of reguiar baii. The Station House Gfficer, Poiice $tation -Torwa shaii keep avaiiabie the case diary for perusai of the Court. it is made ciear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise on reguiar baii appiication moved, which may be moved by the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate. 9. The petitionericounseiirepresentative shaii piace a copy of this order before the $tation House 0fficer of the concerned poiice station for due Deep)? compi of {he iance of the order of the Ccurt to keep the case diary avaiiabie for perusai Court on 8/8i‘201 1. The appiication is accordingiy aiioweci 1 Sd/. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge :W