'^//. Ste^^y- 1. CR.M.P. N0. 146/2011 Sint. Kusunilata W/0 Shravan Ninnatkar, Aged about 32 years, R/o Vfllage Kargi Ghuida, Police Station Kota, Dtetrict-Bilaspur (C.G.). State of Chhatdsgarh Through Station House Officer Police station Kota, District Bflaspiu- (C.G.). RESPONDENT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OP THB CODE OF CRMINAL PROCEDURE. $SB sHon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Hemaat Gupta, Advocate for tlie petitioner. Ms. SunitaJam, P.L. fortbe State/respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 17/03/2011) By fhis petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimiual Procedure, 1973 petitioner has prayed for extension of protective umbreUa of deemed custody provided by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 7/9/ 10 ia bail petitioii No. 989/10 (Kusumlata NimiaSkar v. State of Chliattisgarh). Vide aforesaid order Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has granted bail iu fh.e event of arrest to the petitiouer in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criuuual Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code') in Cr. No. 355/10 registered at Police Station Kota District Bilaspur C.G. for the ofience punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Order was iu force for 60 days. During period of such protective uiabrella present petitioner has applied for regiilar baU under Bection 437 offhe Code before fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota C.G. but same was not decided wifhiu stipulated period i.e. within 60 days ofthe aforesaid order. Again appUcation for extension of tune/ protective uinbreUa was filed by the petitioner tiefore the Sessions -Judge, Bilaspur which has been dismissed vide order dated 9/11/2010 iu bail petition No. 1249/2010 by Sessions Judge. 2. In the preseat case bail under Section 438 of the Code was granted by the Sessions Judge, BUaspur to petitioner for liinited period l.e. for 60 days, present petitioner was under obligation to apply for regular bail before fhe tnal Court wifhin aforesaid stipulated period wiffaout surrendermg himseU/herself ia the light of protective order. Application filed on behalf of ' the petitioner has not been decided by the trial Court with iu stipulated tiine. Now law has been setfled relating to extension of protective luabreUa and sanie is not extendable. 3. While refusing for extension ofperiod ofprotective umbreUa Sessions Judge, Biiaspur has not coininitted aay fllegality requiring any interference iu exercise of inherent jiuisdiction ia teruis of Section. 482 of the Code. Consequeatly, petition is liable to be disinissed aud is hereby dismissed. Sc/- T.P. Sharma. Judge ^