Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Grandfather In Infant Girl's Murder Case, Laments That People Still Prefer Male Child
The Bombay High Court recently while denying bail to a man booked for killing a month old granddaughter in connivance with his family, bemoaned the continued preference of people to have a male child instead of a female child even after 80 years of independence.
Single-judge Justice Mahendra Nerlikar denied bail to Gopinath Pradhan arrested for killing his own grand-daughter just because she was the second daughter of his son.
"It is deeply unfortunate that, even after 80 years of independence, people in our country still prefer a male child. This is a classic example of the murder of a girl child, because she was the second daughter and the family does not want 2nd daughter," Justice Nerlikar bemoaned.
The FIR came to be lodged alleging that Pradhan, who was the grandfather of the deceased child, along with his family members in collusion with each other killed the one month old girl child, because she was the second girl child. It was alleged that Pradhan and his members had killed the child by drowning her into the tub and placing a brick on her back so that she cannot move.
The incident came to light after one Aasha worker got suspicious and informed the police about the said incident.
The grandfather sought bail on the ground that there was no evidence to connect him with the incident as he got to know about the child's death after his family members raised a hue and cry about it. While seeking bail, the grandfather pointed out to the court that the child's mother, the prime accused, has already been granted bail.
Per Contra, the prosecution vehemently opposed the bail plea on the ground that the offence is very heinous in nature as one month child is killed only because she was girl child. It was pointed out that the applicant was the first one to notice the child in the tub and thus, it was within his 'special knowledge' as the incident took place in his own house.
Justice Nerlikar noted from the chargesheet that the dead body of one month girl child was found in the tub wherein one brick was placed on her back so that she could not move.
"All the accused persons made hue and cry that someone has killed the child and it appears that they have created a scene stating that one door was open and possibly some animal or dog had carried the child in the midnight. Upon perusal of the statements of various witnesses, it appears that the applicant was present in the house at the relevant time and the fact of death of one month girl child is within the special knowledge of all the family members and the applicant. However, they have created the aforesaid scene. It is further to be noted that cremation of the deceased child was also conducted in a hurried manner, however, upon suspicion, one Aasha worker, who is the informant has informed about the same to the concerned Police. Accordingly, the dead body was exhumed and the postmortem was conducted wherein the cause of death was shown as 'asphyxia due to drowning'." the bench noted.
The judge further noted that the Aasha worker informed the family members of the applicant that it is a police case, however nobody paid any heed and declined to inform about the incident to the police.
"This conduct is itself highly objectionable and pin points the finger towards accused including the applicant. Considering the conduct and the mode and manner of the crime, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application stands rejected," the judge ruled.
With these observations, the judge denied bail to the accused.
Appearance:
Advocate UE Quazi was appointed for the Applicant.
Additional Public Prosecutor UR Phasate represented the State.
Case Title: Gopinath Janku Pradhan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application 1129 of 2026)