The prosecution alleges that a one-month-old girl was killed by her family because she was a second daughter, drowned with a brick placed on her back, and that the family staged a story of an animal carrying her off and cremated her in haste. An ASHA worker’s suspicion led to exhumation and a post-mortem showing death by drowning. Refusing the grandfather bail, the Court observed that the death occurred within the four walls of his home and was within the family’s special knowledge, and declined relief given the conduct and manner of the crime. Nothing has been tried.
Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused bail to a man accused, along with his family members, of murdering his one-month-old granddaughter because she was a second girl child, observing that the case was a classic example of the murder of a girl child and that it was deeply unfortunate that, even after 80 years of independence, a male child is still preferred [Gopinath Janku Pradhan v. State of Maharashtra].
Justice M.M. Nerlikar rejected the bail application in a case registered at Desaiganj police station, Gadchiroli, under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the IPC.
The prosecution case
According to the FIR, the applicant, the grandfather of the deceased, along with family members, is alleged to have killed the one-month-old girl because she was the second daughter born to his son and daughter-in-law, and the family preferred a male child. The allegation is that the infant was drowned in a tub with a brick placed on her back so that she could not move; the post-mortem recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning.
The prosecution’s case is that the family raised a hue and cry suggesting that a door had been left open and that an animal may have carried the child away in the night, and that the cremation was conducted in a hurried manner. An ASHA worker grew suspicious and informed the police, following which the body was exhumed and the post-mortem conducted.
These are the allegations of the prosecution at the bail stage; the guilt of the applicant or any family member has not been established, and the matter is yet to be tried.
The rival submissions
Counsel for the applicant argued that there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged murder, that it was difficult to link him to the crime even though it occurred in his house, since he came to know of it only after the hue and cry raised by other family members, and that the mother of the deceased had already been granted bail, so the applicant deserved bail on the ground of parity.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, submitting that the offence was heinous, that the manner of the killing, with a brick placed on the infant’s back, was established by the post-mortem finding of drowning, and that because the applicant was the one who first noticed the infant in the tub and the incident occurred within the four walls of his house, how the child died was within his special knowledge.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court opened with an observation on the social reality behind the case:
“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.”
On the material, the Court noted from the charge-sheet that the body of the infant was found in the tub with a brick on her back, that the incident occurred in the applicant’s house, and that the accused appeared to have created a scene suggesting an animal had carried the child away. From the statements of witnesses, it observed that the applicant was present in the house at the relevant time and that the fact of the child’s death was within the special knowledge of the family members and the applicant, yet they had created the aforesaid scene.
The Court laid particular stress on the family’s response to the ASHA worker, who had told them it was a police case; nobody had paid heed or informed the police. That conduct, the Court held, was highly objectionable and pointed the finger towards the accused, including the applicant. The hurried cremation, and the exhumation that followed the ASHA worker’s report, formed part of the same picture.
Considering the conduct and the mode and manner of the crime, the Court held it was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, and rejected the application. It did not separately address the parity argument in its reasoning, resting the refusal on the conduct and gravity it had described.
Why it matters
Two threads run through the order, one social and one evidentiary, and they are worth separating.
The social observation, that son-preference persists eight decades after independence, is not itself a legal finding, but it frames why courts treat allegations of this kind with particular seriousness. The persistence of a preference for male children, and the crimes it is said to drive, is a documented reality that the Supreme Court too has recently underlined in the context of prenatal sex-determination law. A bail court’s remarks of this kind are an expression of judicial concern rather than a conclusion of guilt, and they should be read as such.
The evidentiary thread is the one that decided the bail. Where a death occurs inside a home and the surrounding circumstances point to those present, the principle reflected in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, becomes relevant: facts especially within the knowledge of a person may cast on him a burden of explanation. That principle does not shift the ultimate burden of proof, which stays on the prosecution, and it operates at trial rather than deciding guilt at the bail stage; but at the stage of bail, an unexplained death within the four walls of the home, coupled with an allegedly staged scene, a hurried cremation and a refusal to involve the police, is the kind of conduct a court may legitimately weigh against release. That is what the Court did here.
On parity, the applicant’s strongest point, that the mother has been granted bail, the order does not engage in terms, which is a gap a higher court might examine if the matter is carried further; parity is a recognised consideration, though it turns on a genuine similarity of role, and a court may distinguish between accused on the material against each. What the order does make clear is that it rests on the applicant’s own alleged conduct and presence, not on his relationship alone.
It bears repeating that this is a refusal of bail, not a conviction. The Court’s observations are for the limited purpose of the bail decision, the allegations remain to be proved at trial, and the applicant and the other accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Case Title: Gopinath Janku Pradhan v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 1129 of 2026]
Bench: Justice M.M. Nerlikar, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Date of Order: September 9, 2026 | Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:12016
Appearances: Advocate U.E. Quazi (appointed) for the applicant. APP U.R. Phasate for the State.
Status: Bail rejected. Observations confined to the bail stage; allegations untested; presumption of innocence applies.