Himachal Pradesh High Court grants bail to woman accused of confining Dalit boy in cowshed, abetting death

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the status report filed before the court is “highly vague”. (Image is enhanced using AI)

It was alleged that the woman, along with two or three other persons, beat and locked the minor in a cow shed, claiming that the child had touched her house and would not be released until a “sacrificial goat” was brought.

“The petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to special consideration, and she cannot be detained for an indefinite period during the trial,” the court said while allowing her plea.

Earlier, the court had dismissed her anticipatory bail in October, slamming the police for not invoking the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the very outset when the child’s father lodged a complaint on September 17, 2025.

Findings

• The court also referred to the status report filed by the police in the present case, but found it “highly vague” with no mention of the facts of the case.
• The charge-sheet records that the child was locked inside a cow shed, from where he escaped by breaking the mesh of a ventilator, which was verified by a forensic expert’s report.
• The court noted that the child belonged to a Scheduled Caste, whereas the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste.
• It was alleged that the petitioner demanded a “sacrificial goat” to purify her house; however, the charge sheet does not indicate that any such custom was prevalent in the area, and therefore, this allegation would not assist the prosecution.
• The court also observed that if the petitioner believed that the touch of the child had polluted her house, confining the child inside the house appeared contradictory.
• All these circumstances, the court held, raise a prima facie doubt regarding the prosecution’s version.

Arguments

Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Ajay Kochhar argued that the woman was named as an abettor for the commission of the suicide by the child; however, these allegations are false, and there is no material on record to connect her with the crime. The other key arguments were:

• She had not instigated the death of the child, and the police investigated the matter in a biased manner due to political pressure.
• Being a woman, she is entitled to bail, highlighting that the police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining her in custody.

• It was emphasised that she would abide by the terms and conditions of the bail.

On the contrary, the state’s counsel, additional advocate general Lokender Kutlehria and the informant’s counsel, advocate Raju Ram Rahi, stated that the petitioner had beaten the child because he had touched her house, which shows caste-based discrimination being practised by her. The other key arguments were:

• There is a resentment in the locality because of the petitioner’s conduct.
• The petitioner had intimidated the informant’s family members, and an FIR was registered regarding this fact.
• The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of her release on bail.