‘People still prefer male child:’ Bombay High Court denies bail over month-old girl’s killing

The court noted that the child was killed in 2023 and that her mother had already been granted bail, but rejected the grandfather’s bail plea.

The Bombay High Court recently rejected the bail plea of a man accused in the killing of his one-month-old granddaughter in 2023, allegedly because she was the family’s second girl child. The court made a strong observation that even after “80 years of independence”, people in our country still prefer a “male child”, calling the case a “classic example” of a girl child being killed because the family did not want a second daughter.

Justice M M Nerlikar noted that the matter came to light when an ASHA worker became suspicious and informed the police. The worker allegedly told the family that the incident was a police case, but the family members did not pay “heed” and declined to inform the police. The worker later informed the police about the child’s death.

“This conduct is itself highly objectionable and pinpoints the finger towards the accused, including the applicant (grandfather),” he added.

The court on September 9 further said, “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 FIR was lodged on the information given by an ASHA worker and alleged that the grandfather of the child and his family members, in collusion with each other, had killed the one-month-old girl child because she was the second girl child in the family.

The man’s counsel, advocate U E Quazi, argued that there is absolutely no evidence against him in connection with the murder of a one-month-old girl child. He further submitted that the mother of the girl child has already been granted bail and he deserves the same, pointing out that it is difficult to connect him with the alleged crime though the incident occurred in his house and was noticed by the man only after other family members raised an alarm.

Justice M M Nerlikar found that the cremation of the one-month-old girl was conducted by the family in a “hurried manner”.

On the contrary, assistant public prosecutor U R Phasate opposed the application on the ground that the offence is very heinous in nature, as a one-month-old child was killed allegedly only because she was a girl child by the man and other family members. He argued that the man was the first to notice the infant and therefore, how the child died is within his special knowledge, as the incident occurred within the four walls of his house.

‘Family made hue and cry’

The court found that all the accused persons raised an alarm, saying that someone had killed the child and created a “scene” by claiming that one door was open and possibly some animal or dog had carried the child away at midnight.

“Upon perusal of the statements of various witnesses, it appears that the applicant (grandfather) was present in the house at the relevant time, and the fact of the death of a one-month-old girl child is within the special knowledge of all the family members and the applicant,” it pointed out.

The court also noted that the cremation of the child was conducted in a hurried manner and found that the postmortem report of the child showed the cause of the girl’s death as ‘asphyxia due to drowning’. Accordingly, the high court rejected the man’s bail application.