Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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