Majida @ Most Majida v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11262 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Majida @ Most Majida W/o Late Aziz Ansari Resident of Village- Khagra Machhmara, P.S. + Distt- Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3.

27-08-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 53 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 376, 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, the informant was married with one Md. Samir in the year 2017 and after a few months, she returned to her maika. It is alleged that but due to some quarrel between informant and her mother, the informant left her maika and boarded in a bus. It is further alleged that one person namely Firoz, after misguiding her, brought her in a red light area in Kishanganj and sold her to one Krishna. Thereafter, it is alleged that Krishna sent the informant to house of Majida (petitioner), where she was assaulted and forced in the business of prostitution.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11262 of 2020(3) dt.27-08-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and the allegation made in the FIR is false and concocted. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that in her house, the informant was tortured physically and forced in flesh trade. On perusal of case diary, the age of the informant has been assessed as 16 years.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.) anay U T