Crl.M.No.M-9272 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-9272 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 29, 2010 Geeta .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.111, dated 12.7.2009, under Sections 3,4, and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. The allegations against the petitioner-accused are that she alongwith her husband is running a brothel and earning huge money out of this business. Raid was conducted. Four ladies and three gents including husband of present petitioner were apprehended on the spot, whereas petitioner succeeded in running. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been apprehended on the spot and that the house in which she alongwith her husband was residing is owned by Tehsildar and some dispute is going on between them. However, no such documentary evidence has been placed on record that there is some dispute between landlord and tenant. I have considered all the facts of the case. Allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature Crl.M.No.M-9272 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and hence, her custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, petitioner is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by petitioner- Geeta is hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 29.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge