Anticipatory bail granted as allegations of abduction and extortion regarding custody do not meet the threshold for such charges; lawful guardianship established post-re-marriage.

Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.64 dated 08.08.2023 registered under Section 384 IPC at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Ludhiana.

2. Petitioner is alleged to have abducted her two children Moulik and Khushi from the custody of her husband and the parents-in-law on 03.10.2022. She along with her family is also alleged to be demanding money from the complainant i.e., her husband and father-in-law for handing over back the children.

3. Status report on behalf of the respondent- State along with the inquiry report has been filed.

4. As it emerges on perusal of the entire paper book, marriage of petitioner – Preeti Bansal was performed with Deepak Bansal in the year 2013. Son Moulik was born in 2014. Daughter Khushi was born in 2018. Petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed on 25.04.2018 and the husband Deepak took the custody of son Moulik, whereas petitioner – wife Preeti kept the daughter Khushi, who was four months old at that time. Decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was passed on 30.10.2018. Deepak Bansal instituted civil proceedings for custody of both the children and as per order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Court, custody of both the children went to him. In April, 2021, petitioner – Preeti started working in Ludhiana and living in a rented accommodation. She was transferred to Jaipur in July, 2021. On 03.08.2021, she lodged an FIR under Section 376B IPC against the husband Deepak Bansal, alleging that despite divorce, said Deepak was making physical relations with her on the pretext of remarriage. In August, 2021, petitioner and Deepak re-married and started living together in Ludhiana and the FIR (registered on 03.08.2021 under Section 376B IPC) was got cancelled. The couple stayed together for 3-4 months but again separated. Petitioner- Preeti went to her parental place. On 16.09.2022, Deepak went abroad.

5. It is alleged that petitioner Preeti came to Ludhiana and demanded expenses. It is further alleged that on 03.10.2022, she came to Ludhiana in the matrimonial home on the pretext of meeting the children and fraudulently took away both the children i.e., Moulik and Khushi. It is further alleged that petitioner along with her father and other family members started demanding ¹ 1.25 crore for handing over the custody of the children. On 26.10.2022, complaint was made by Deepak Bansal to take action against the petitioner and her other family members. On 09.11.2022, petitioner lodged FIR No.269 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 IPC at Jaipur. Another complaint on 14.03.2023 was made by Shri Tarsem Lal Jain, the father of Deepak Bansal to take action on the complaint earlier filed by his son. Both these complaints were inquired into and after obtaining opinion of the District Attorney, present FIR was registered.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that present FIR is gross misuse of the process of law; that at the time of divorce by mutual consent, the custody of daughter Khushi had come to the petitioner but Deepak Bansal then started coming closer to the petitioner on the pretext of visiting rights of the petitioner with son Moulik and developed physical relations with her by giving assurance that they will perform re-marriage. It is because of the inducement made by Deepak Bansal that petitioner handed over the custody of minor daughter Khushi to him. However, Deepak Bansal started ignoring petitioner and went to America, leaving the children at the mercy of his parents. As and when petitioner contacted him for remarriage, he told that he will do so after coming back to India but asked the petitioner not to try to meet the children. Learned counsel further submits that after coming back, Deepak Bansal again started developing physical relations with petitioner on the pretext of re-marriage but then ignored her, compelling the petition