Bail denied to man accused of killing his partner’s six-year-old daughter after an alleged dispute over ice cream

The appeal arose from the rejection of Accused No. 1’s regular-bail application by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

Following the death of a child, police initially registered an unnatural-death case after a complaint named the appellant and the child’s mother as suspects.

A later complaint led to Crime No. 247/2026, and the appellant was arrested and remanded to custody.

The appellant argued that the complaint was delayed, the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the investigation and charge-sheet were complete, and the co-accused had been released on bail.

The prosecution relied on the post-mortem findings and other collected material, including allegations that the appellant assaulted and suffocated the child and that the accused later attempted to conceal the crime.

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the Sessions Court’s order rejecting bail.

Whether, in light of the material collected and the nature of the alleged offences, the appellant should be released on bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the bail application before the Sessions Court was under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The charge-sheet alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court’s stated approach was to assess whether the record disclosed prima facie material and whether the impugned bail order contained a legal or factual error warranting appellate interference.

The appellant cited Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, but the judgment does not discuss or apply that decision.

The Court considered the post-mortem report, inquest mahazar, the appellant’s voluntary statement, and police mahazars, and found prima facie material against him.

It noted that the alleged offence was heinous and punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that the appellant was allegedly in the company of the child and the co-accused when the incident occurred.

The Court did not regard the delay in registering the crime as sufficient to justify bail, accepting the prosecution’s explanation that the initial failure to register a crime case resulted from investigating-officer negligence, for which disciplinary action had been initiated.

It therefore found no legal or factual error in the Sessions Court’s order.

The Court dismissed the appeal, leaving in place the order rejecting the appellant’s bail application.