Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

No Abduction in Mother's Act of Taking Her Children – Anticipatory Bail Granted: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, declared that a mother taking her children cannot be termed as abduction. The statement came during the pronouncement of anticipatory bail in favor of Preeti Bansal, who was embroiled in a complex custody battle involving allegations of child abduction and ransom demands.

The case, recorded under Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:141792, revolved around FIR No.64 dated 08.08.2023 under Section 384 IPC at the Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Ludhiana. The petitioner, Preeti Bansal, was accused of abducting her two children, Moulik and Khushi, from her ex-husband, Deepak Bansal, and his parents, and demanding a substantial amount of money for their return.

Justice Deepak Gupta, in his landmark judgment, observed, "Once it is so, the petitioner along with her husband became the lawful guardians of her children. Even if it be assumed that petitioner has taken away her children, it cannot be stated that she has abducted them." This observation formed the cornerstone of the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The court delved into the intricate details of the petitioner’s marital history, the divorce proceedings, allegations of physical relations post-divorce, and the subsequent remarriage. The judgment highlighted that the allegations of demanding money in exchange for the children’s custody will be a matter of trial.

This ruling sets a precedent in cases involving complex family disputes, particularly emphasizing the rights and roles of parents in the guardianship of their children. The court's decision underscores the necessity of a nuanced approach in cases where familial relationships and custody issues intersect with legal proceedings.

The case saw Mr. Naveen Bawa advocating for the petitioner, while Mr. Randeep Singh Khaira, DAG, Punjab, and Mr. Vishal Aggarwal represented the respondent and the complainant, respectively.

The High Court's decision is seen as a pivotal moment in the legal landscape surrounding custody disputes, emphasizing the importance of context and the roles of parents in such sensitive matters.

Date of Decision: Pronounced on November 7, 2023

Preeti Bansal VS State of Punjab       

Latest Legal News