S^iS^ ^^"'i^y' w &W "^- •• •<$ »aW ^ ^••' ?.. IN THK HIGH.COURT JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR (CG) Single Bench Cr.^-^ ^-, ^ j( (KSisc.Gr.Cas^iNo. ' <_5<^ Of 2006 SECTroN/4820FCODE OF ^E?QrEK^€»fX^TIME^ QO >" ^<s» w^~ fft .1. i^eta Steia S/<f Ms^vssaiiaged jaboert 45 years. 2. Sate^iSfo Seta Rasi, aged 3. Bsa'atS/o Je^raiaCfond, aged abQat32years. 4. Ja@eevaaS/<»Satruhanaged ^ejhadiitola, 'Riana Sahaspar, TahsS la., Distiict Kabirdharm (CG). , VERSUS Statioii—Sahaspur am ICG^. h i! :: Bli.i: XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f^lN;3TI^?T g>tfwgf?(T V- 3^^(Tsn?pr, ss'-^y'is, faeiiuy 3ii^i ^atti . ^^•^;.(?.-.?.?. ftWvi\ shWVi ••••••••••••••••••"^ Rl'bid 3n^Ts?grw(ri?a' Wlf^-T imrit'ff fe^ dSFFSK ^arf^TSti^r 01,09,2006 Shri Alok Pandey, Couns(sl for the applicants. Heard on admission. The applicants have filed) fhis petition under Section 482 <f. of fhe Code of CTimiaal./l^roc^duie foi extension of time for moving to the appropriate-Coui|t for graut of rcguJar bail, which was gianted to them vide ord^r dated 25/4/3006 passed in M.Cr.C. No.467/2006. The aforesaid MisceUaa^ous Criininal Case was ffled under Section 438 ofttie Code |ofCrimmaI Proceditre for grant of aaticipatozy bail to the appl^cants, who were apprehendmg their arrest in coanection with (Criine No. 175/2005, registered at PoUce Station - Sahaspiir, pistnct - Kabirdhaiu (C.G.) for tfae ofiFence punishable under S^ctions 452,294,506,323,147 of the IPC and Section 3(l)(x)|of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventioa of^taDcities) Act, 1989. This Court after hearing ]the petition allowed fhe same vide order dated 85/4/2006 aa|d directed Ihat m the event of arrest, the applicants shaU be r^leased on bail ou each of them fiu-nishiag a personal bond in) sum of Rs.5000/- with one siirety each in the like siun to| fhe satisfaction of the officer arresting them. The said order ^pas directed to remain in force for a period of45 days, du|-m.g wllich, the applicants had to appty for regular bail before tfa^ concemed Court. Cflt^^) -UlU,»»V_ll:7_1?UC/:';'5;U'^1L -K-il'i ^|l'!:lii(fe'iy^i?^;e<Ri??'5^f~s^^r;?'E!E!gE K^- , i«^ XI-HC-22 !|i!N Bai:; E^ist sn^r^r f^TRian^r ^iTWHfsg' 3ST ^ll^ld'4, dTfl+ITe, Rdiyy 3TTcpTtra^7_ Wt(?(Tg?TraT ^ 200 •'•••••••fg^% 3n^T?^iT8;R:gf?cT -^ L' Leamed counsel for thereafiter, the applicaats coi qricpftT wRrr'ir'teit':tfSReri: ^; a-rf^H 3-n^r the applicants submits that not appty for regular bail before the concemed Court aad ul^imatety, they have agaia come before this Court for extensioti of period, which was granted vide order dated 25/4/2006. ^e furfher submits that since the appUcants could not approach|to the regular court on account of certam. personal reasons, it^ time may be extended so that they may approach to fhe sai4 Court and avail the benefit of orderdated 25/4/2006. This contention of lear4ed counsel for the applicaats would not Ue in refereace to 1lie law laid down by the Apex Court tn the matter of Adrl 9htiran Das V. Stdte of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303. wherein rej^rring to the deaswrvrendered in the matter of SaIaadtUn Aftdttlsamcul Sheiikh V. Stecte of SSaharashtft, f1996) 1 SCC Q67 and K.L. Verma V^S^te, be movedfor bail. Ob (1998) 9 SCC 348, fhe Apex Co|urt has held as foltows: "As observed in l^atouddin case, (1996) 1 SCC 667, the protecfion in t^rms ofSection -i38 Cr.P.C. isfor a lirmled duration duri^g which the regular oourf has to iausly, sucft bail is bcdl in terms ofSecfion -f39 Cr.P.C., ^tanda.ting the appHcant to be in custody. Otherwise, fhe distirwtion between orders under Section 438 an4 439 Cr.P.C. shall be rendered meamngless and red[tndant. In K.L. Verma case, (1998) 9 SCC 348 it w^siobserved : "Anticipatory bgil XI-HC-22 3^ •^MWf, •a'<S\ww, Rciiyy 3T1^?T'451cb C^Ai-.(0.2S KINWI giw^i H^ 200 (o f^)% sii^rw f^IRi3TI^T OTra'Hf5tr sn^rs^nwflf??!' \ y. niay be grantedfor a ^. date on whicft the even a few days tfif persons to move ffi^ The expression 'or, to grey areas. Cr.P.C. is extended Salauddin oase the whaf is mandafed ir) custody. In oiher remedies up to higl^ Seclion 439 become oan be rendered ^vtn If fhe f^rotective reisuft redurtptcmt A fllie In view of the above leg41 extension of timc granted to under Sectioa 482 offhe Code extended. The petitio^. has no merit) and the same is disiiiissed. "biiFci-'fl-i iiti<-iY?''tet3'<Ri«i< ^?3T^IT3I1^?T ^urcdion wfuch mayextend to the blp.il applioation is disposed of or 'reafter to enable the ciccused \higher oourf, if they so desire'. afewdays Ihereafter" relates umbreHa ofSection 438 t^eyond what was laid down in would be dear bypassing cf Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding ipords, till the applicant avcdls jl^er courts, the requiremenfs of i^ead tetter. No part of a statute in thal mcmner.' position, now this petition for applicautson 25.4.2006, ffled t)f Criminal Procedure camiot be Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ('fl^^fo'i) •l^. «^