IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45941 of 2008 1. RUKSANA KHATOON @ GURIYA KHATOON W/O MALLU KHALIFA 2. REHANA KHATOON W/O AKHATAR KHALIFA. ( BOTH R/O VILL. BOHA TOLA, P.S. SITAMARHI, DIST. SITAMARHI.) --- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR -- OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. R.B.Roy Raman, APP. 05. 05.05.2009 Heard both sides. The petitioners have approached this court seeking anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 372, 373, 366A, 366 and 376(G) of the Penal Code and Sections 4,5, 6,8 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the sister of the informant was traced in the house of petitioner no.1. The victim disclosed that she was kidnapped by the accused persons and thereafter kept in the house of Mallu Khalifa, (husband of petitioner no.1) where she was initially subjected to rape and thereafter was made to cater to the need of the customer to the brothel which was being run in the house of the husband of petitioner no.1. In course of search made by the police several girls were recovered. It is prosecution case that petitioner no.2 and her husband used to assist the main culprit in procuring the girls and thereafter involved in the brothel business which was being carried out in the house of the husband of petitioner no.1. Referring to annexure-2 learned counsel for the petitioners - 2 - submits that on 05.10.2007 the victim had lodged an informatory petition before the authorities stating therein that she was residing in the house of petitioner no.1 Ruksana Khatoon @ Guriya Khatoon as a tenant along with her family members and there was some dispute between them and the landlord, for which she was being threatened/tortured. Having considered the submissions and after going through the records, this court finds that there is direct allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. which have been supported in course of investigation by the witnesses, and as such, in the opinion of this court no good case for extension of privilege of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the application seeking anticipatory bail stands rejected. Sym. ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)