Nobody Can Assess Child's Safety Like Mother: P&H High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 10-Yr-Old's Mother Despite Prima Facie Evidence In Fraud Case
The Court should refrain from questioning the mother's judgment, as no one is in better position to assess a child's safety and best interest than mother, said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while granting pre-arrest bail to a 10-year-old girl's mother who is booked in a fraud case.
In the present case, the father of the child was already in custody in Haryana Post Matric Scholarship Corruption Scam. If the mother was also arrested, she was left with no choice but to leave her 10-year-old daughter with relatives.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "As the parens patriae, the Court bears the responsibility to safeguard the child's interests and cannot relinquish this duty by placing her welfare in the hands of relatives. This is especially pertinent given that the mother, as the primary custodian, has explicitly expressed a lack of confidence in the capacity of any immediate family members to adequately ensure her daughter's safety, education, and emotional and social well-being, thereby compromising her overall security and welfare."
The Court said further that it found it justifiable to grant bail to the petitioner, notwithstanding the existence of prima facie evidence against her, in consideration of the overarching well- being and needs of the child.
"This decision is anchored in the paramount importance of ensuring the child's safety and recognizing the weight of the mother's judgment in safeguarding her daughter's welfare. This Court should refrain from questioning the mother's judgment, as it is generally accepted that, under ordinary circumstances, no one is better positioned to assess a child's safety and best interests than her mother," the judge added.
These observations were made while hearing the bail plea of a college principal who was booked in two FIRs for allegedly committing fraud by preparing fake roll of students under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC Act.
It was alleged that the petitioner Veena Yadav along with her husband in connivance with their employee and officers of higher education department after hatching a criminal conspiracy prepared forged, fabricated documents and siphoned of the government money amounting Rs. 2. 58 crores during the session 2014-15.
Senior counsel for the petitioner Bipin Ghai submitted that her daughter is at a sensitive stage of development, requiring careful attention and her extended relatives, would be unable to provide the requisite level of care and support.
After hearing from both the sides, the Court noted that the evidence collected is primarily documentary pointing towards her involvement and awareness of the fraud perpetrated by the partitioner and her husband.
The judge highlighted that the child's father is in custody and it would be unreasonable for the court to defer consideration of the petition until the father's potential release on bail, only to then incarcerate the mother.
The Court observed that given the sensitive nature of this stage, the absence of a mother's direct involvement could detrimentally affect the child's emotional resilience, adaptation, and overall well-being.
"Thus, the grounds for granting bail, especially keeping the current ground realities of the region in mind, outweigh the reasons to detain the petitioner, and the Court is exercising its judicial discretion to grant the same," added the Court.
In the light of the above, the Court opined that there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration of petitioner at this stage.
While imposing certain restrictions, the Court allowed the plea.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
Mr. P.S.Bindra, Advocate, Ms. Malini Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Title: Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 280