Agartala, February 28, 2026: The Tripura High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 14-year-old minor boy in a domestic violence case, citing compassionate grounds related to his education, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of his father, the prime accused in the matter.

In an order dated February 23, Justice T. Amarnath Goud observed that the case presents unusual circumstances, as the complaint was filed by a grandmother against her own grandson, while the victim is her daughter. The court noted that such a situation would not ordinarily arise unless there were serious underlying issues, and observed that the minor may have acted under the influence or instigation of his father.

The case stems from an FIR lodged on December 9, 2025, by the victim’s mother, alleging that the husband subjected his wife and mother-in-law to physical and mental cruelty by provoking their minor son. The FIR further alleges that the child broke a cupboard, stole gold jewellery and handed it over to his father. It also states that the victim’s mobile phone was forcibly taken away in 2025 and that she was assaulted when she protested. The complainant and victim have also alleged that they have been living under constant threats to their lives. Divorce proceedings between the couple are currently underway.

Based on the complaint, a case was registered at the NCC police station against the accused under Sections 305(A), 324(2), 351(1), 117(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Fearing arrest, the accused first applied for anticipatory bail before the trial court. When their plea was rejected, they subsequently approached the High Court.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Banshuri Poddar argued that the accused had been falsely implicated. He claimed that the minor had himself been subjected to physical and mental harassment by his mother and grandmother and had sought help from Childline and the Child Welfare Committee. He further contended that under the Juvenile Justice Act, the minor was entitled to anticipatory bail and that denial of relief would adversely affect his Class IX examinations scheduled between February 24 and March 3.

However, the High Court noted that despite being served notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian National Security Code, the accused husband failed to cooperate with the investigation and repeatedly sought time, thereby delaying the probe. The court observed that the law cannot be applied selectively and stressed that every citizen is duty-bound to follow due legal process.

Taking into account the ongoing family dispute and the potential impact on the minor’s academic future, the court adopted a sympathetic view and granted anticipatory bail to the child. At the same time, it dismissed the father’s application, allowing the investigation against him to proceed.