Grandmother versus grandson: Here’s why Tripura High Court granted bail to teen accused of torturing his mother

The order added that prima facie, if there is nothing suspicious in the conduct of both the accused, there is no question as to why a mother (victim) and grandmother would complain.

The court remarked that the minor may have been under the influence and tutored by the father, else there is no need for the complainant and victim to speak against the child.

Allegation of domestic violence

• The proceedings originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on December 9, 2025, by the victim’s mother.
• The accused are the victim’s husband and her minor son.
• The prosecution alleged that the husband instigated his son to subject both the victim and the complainant to physical and mental torture.
• The minor was also accused of breaking open an almirah, stealing gold ornaments, and handing them over to his father.
• In 2025, the husband allegedly took away the mobile phone of the victim, and when she confronted him, he turned violent and physically assaulted her.
• It has been alleged in the FIR that the complainant and the victim have been living under constant threat to their lives, safety, and security.
• The family is currently embroiled in a pending divorce case.
• The accused were charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including 305(a) (theft in a dwelling), 117(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 317(2) (dishonestly receiving stolen property).
• Apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR, the accused persons (petitioners) approached the trial court seeking anticipatory bail.
• Following the rejection of the plea by the trial court, the petitioners moved the high court.

Petitioner’s case

• Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Bansuri Kumar Poddar argued that the accused are innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
• She further submitted that the minor had faced physical and mental trauma at the hands of both his mother and grandmother, and he had approached Childline and the Child Welfare Committee, and made a complaint seeking protection and support.
• She stated that the minor is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and a juvenile in conflict with the law is also entitled to seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

• She argued that the accused minor is a regular school-going student of Class 9, but, due to ongoing domestic disputes and the pendency of the FIR, he has already undergone severe mental stress and emotional trauma, and his academic future has also been seriously affected.
• She further submitted that the examination for Class 9 will commence from February 24 to March 3, in which the minor has to appear, and if the anticipatory bail is not granted in favour of the applicant, his academic year in the said school would be jeopardised.

‘Minor does not come with clean hands’

• The concerned authority had issued a notice to the accused husband under Section 35(3) of BNSS to appear and co-operate with the investigation, but he did not co-operate with the investigation.
• On several occasions, requests were made by the applicant to grant some time, causing only a delay in the investigation.
• The court has taken an adverse inference against the minor since he has not come before it with clean hands.
• If this anticipatory bail application is granted to the said applicant, it will prolong the investigation, creating a hindrance to the justice delivery system.
• It becomes an obligation on the part of a law-abiding citizen to respect and obey the law of the land and the court proceedings.
• Often arguments are advanced in writ petitions or in criminal cases, saying that the respondent has violated the doctrine of audi alterm partem (hear the other side) and the procedure contemplated under law has not been followed, etc, praying for indulgence.
• But it becomes equally necessary to examine what accusation the citizen is facing and whether he approaches the court of law with clean hands.
• In the backdrop of the allegations against the citizen, it would be better to decide whether he is entitled to raise such an argument.
• Citizen also equally responsible to comply with the requirements under the law.

‘Not in best interest to damage family relationship’

• Law is not one-sided, as if only respondents should follow.
• Even the petitioner should first make out a prima facie case in his favour.
• A citizen cannot plead equities, where he himself is not following the due process of law.
• As a law-abiding citizen, the accused petitioner first ought to have appeared before the court of law once a summons is issued at the first stage, and at the second stage, warrants are issued, he ought to have followed as contemplated under the law laid down in BNSS.
• The court does not invite, warranting of discretionary powers under Section 482 of BNSS for granting anticipatory bail for an accused person who is not trustworthy and evading the procedure and being non-cooperative.
• The accused minor’s school exam for Class 9 is going to be held from the last week of February; therefore, a sympathetic view is taken in favour of him granting bail.
• Being an allegation amongst the family members and the juvenile, the court feels not in the best interest of the parties to further precipitate the matter and further damage their relationship.