The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has rejected the bail application of a grandfather in connection with the death of his one-month-old granddaughter in Gadchiroli.
Justice M.M. Nerlikar held that the circumstances emerging from the record, including the manner in which the infant's body was found and the conduct of the family members, did not warrant granting bail to the applicant.
The case arose from Crime No. 253/2023 registered at Desaiganj Police Station under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the infant, who was the second girl child born to the applicant’s son and daughter-in-law, was drowned in a tub and that a brick was placed on her back.
The applicant, Gopinath Janku Pradhan, is the grandfather of the deceased child. His counsel argued that there was no evidence directly connecting him with the death. It was also submitted that the child's mother had already been granted bail and that the applicant should receive similar relief.
The State opposed the application, pointing out that the incident occurred inside the applicant's house and that the applicant was among those who first noticed the child in the tub. The post-mortem report recorded the cause of death as “asphyxia due to drowning.”
After examining the charge-sheet and witness statements, Justice Nerlikar noted that the applicant was present in the house when the incident occurred. The Court also noted that the family members had created a scene suggesting that, as one door was open, an animal or dog might have carried the child away during the night.
The Court further observed that the child's cremation was carried out hurriedly. The ASHA worker informed the police about the incident, following which the child’s body was exhumed and a post-mortem examination was conducted.
The Court remarked:
“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.”
The Court noted that the ASHA worker had informed the family members that the incident was a police matter, but they did not pay heed and declined to inform the police. The Court considered this conduct relevant while examining the bail plea.
The Court further observed:
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.
The bail application was accordingly rejected.
Case Title: Gopinath Janku Pradhan v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 1129 of 2026
Judge: Justice M.M. Nerlikar
Decision Date: September 9, 2026
