Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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       

Similar News