Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Ss.126(2), 115(2), 74, 333, 318(4) r/w 3(5) – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) – Alleged Attempts on Life – Videographing of Incident by Juvenile Accused. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is a minor aged 16 years against whom the allegation is videographing the incident while other accused allegedly attempted to do away with the life of the de-facto complainant in the backdrop of a land dispute. Seven witnesses examined. No adverse antecedents of similar nature. Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Considerations. Court considered age (16 years), student status, absence of criminal antecedents, and nature of allegations. Held, circumstances justify granting anticipatory bail to the juvenile (A4), subject to conditions.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Ss.126(2), 115(2), 74, 333, 318(4) r/w 3(5) – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) – Alleged Attempts on Life – Videographing of Incident by Juvenile Accused.
Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is a minor aged 16 years against whom the allegation is videographing the incident while other accused allegedly attempted to do away with the life of the de-facto complainant in the backdrop of a land dispute. Seven witnesses examined. No adverse antecedents of similar nature.

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Considerations.
Court considered age (16 years), student status, absence of criminal antecedents, and nature of allegations. Held, circumstances justify granting anticipatory bail to the juvenile (A4), subject to conditions.

Order – Anticipatory Bail Granted to Juvenile (A4) With Conditions.
In event of arrest, A4 to be enlarged on bail on executing bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties; shall cooperate with investigation and not commit similar offences.

Result: Criminal Petition partly allowed – dismissed as infructuous for A2 and A5; pre-arrest bail granted to A4 with conditions.

A petition for pre-arrest bail becomes infructuous and is not maintainable when the accused has already been arrested and is in judicial custody.
Since Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 5 were arrested on 21.10.2025 and remained in judicial custody for 50 days, the request under Section 482 BNSS for anticipatory bail could not survive, and the Criminal Petition stood dismissed to that extent.

A juvenile in conflict with law may be granted pre-arrest bail when the allegations attributed to him are auxiliary in nature, he has no adverse antecedents, and his custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary.
Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 was a 16-year-old minor whose alleged role was limited to videographing the incident; in the absence of prior criminal conduct and in view of his student status, anticipatory bail was justified.

Gravity of allegations under BNS and offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act does not by itself operate as an absolute bar against anticipatory bail where the accused is a minor and the statutory pre-conditions for denial are not attracted on the facts.
The Court held that despite serious allegations, the juvenile’s limited role and absence of antecedents warranted protection under pre-arrest bail.