Archive · 17 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Rejects Bail in Girl Child Killing Case
A court in Bombay refused to release a grandfather on bail in a case about a baby girl’s death.
The baby was one month old.
Prosecutors say the family may have killed her because she was their second daughter.
An ASHA health worker became suspicious and told the police.
The family allegedly did not report the death themselves.
The family reportedly said that an animal or dog might have carried the baby away.
The court said the family cremated the baby very quickly.
The medical report said the baby died from breathing problems caused by drowning.
The grandfather’s lawyer said there was no evidence against him, but the court decided he should not receive bail.
The Bombay High Court rejected a grandfather’s bail plea in the alleged killing of his one-month-old granddaughter in 2023.
The prosecution alleges the infant was killed because she was the family’s second girl child.
An ASHA worker alerted police after the family allegedly declined to report the death.
The court noted the family’s alleged hurried cremation and an explanation that an animal may have carried the child away.
The postmortem report cited asphyxia due to drowning, while the defense denied evidence connecting the grandfather to the killing.
- Who
- A grandfather and other family members are accused; the deceased was his one-month-old granddaughter.
- What
- The Bombay High Court rejected the grandfather’s bail application in the alleged killing of the infant.
- When
- The death occurred in 2023, and the court rejected bail on September 9.
- Where
- The incident allegedly occurred at the family’s house, and the case was heard by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The prosecution alleges the girl was killed because she was the family’s second daughter; the court cited witness statements, the family’s conduct, and the postmortem findings while denying bail.
Prosecution and Court Concerns
Defense Arguments
Evidence and Responsibility
Prosecution and Court Concerns
The prosecution argued that the grandfather was the first to notice the infant and that the circumstances of her death were within his special knowledge because the incident occurred inside his house.
Defense Arguments
The defense argued that there was no evidence connecting the grandfather to the killing and said it was difficult to link him to the crime.
Family’s Conduct After Death
Prosecution and Court Concerns
The prosecution and court pointed to the alleged failure to report the death, the hurried cremation, and the family’s claim that an animal may have carried the child away.
Defense Arguments
The defense maintained that the grandfather noticed the incident only after other family members raised an alarm and argued that he should receive bail, noting that the child’s mother had already been granted bail.
- Victim
- A one-month-old girl child
- Accused
- The infant’s grandfather and other family members
- Alleged motive
- The prosecution says the family did not want a second daughter
- Police notification
- An ASHA worker informed police after becoming suspicious
- Postmortem finding
- Asphyxia due to drowning
- Court outcome
- The grandfather’s bail application was rejected
- Presiding judge
- Justice M. M. Nerlikar