No Special Treatment for Women in Murder Cases: Rajasthan HC Rejects Mother-in-Law's Bail Plea

In a stark ruling that underscores equality in the face of grave crimes, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur denied bail to 63-year-old Chhoti Devi, accused of participating in the brutal strangulation murder of her daughter-in-law. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu dismissed the application on May 1, 2026, emphasizing that being a woman offers no automatic reprieve in serious offences like murder.

A Family Turned Fatal: The Deadly Incident Unraveled

The case stems from events at Rajputo Ka Bas, Jalwana, under Padu Kala Police Station in Nagaur district. Chhoti Devi, her husband Mangla Ram (father-in-law), and their son allegedly strangled the deceased—the petitioner's daughter-in-law—before assaulting her and administering electric shocks to ensure her death. Police registered FIR No. 61/2025, leading to Sessions Case No. 45/2025 with charges under Sections 103(1) (murder), 331(7) (grievous hurt), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Chhoti Devi has been in judicial custody at Sub Jail, Merta, since her arrest. Her bail plea under Section 483 BNSS challenged a Sessions Judge's rejection on July 2, 2025. Notably, the son received bail as a juvenile, but no parity was granted here. With trial underway and witnesses under examination, the High Court weighed the timing heavily.

Defense Gambit: Medical Mismatch and Gender Card

Petitioner's counsel, Sr. Adv. J.S. Choudhary assisted by Pradeep Choudhary, argued for release on multiple fronts. They claimed omnibus allegations against the trio, with Chhoti Devi's role limited to electric shocks—undermined by the postmortem doctor's opinion that injuries didn't match shock marks. No evidence tied her to strangulation or other assaults, they said. Recoveries like electric wire and broken bangles were downplayed.

Crucially, they invoked the proviso to Section 480 BNSS, favoring bail for women, and cited two Rajasthan High Court precedents: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Nos. 2466/2010 and 2344/2024.

Prosecution's Counter: Collective Guilt, No Escape

Public Prosecutor Surendra Bishnoi, with Ramavtar, pushed back hard. They insisted allegations implicated all three in strangulation, rejecting role segregation. The doctor's statement didn't exonerate her, and recoveries linked her directly. Dismissing gender as a shield, they highlighted the murder's gravity.

Bench's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Parity Over Pity

Justice Sandhu meticulously reviewed the charge-sheet and postmortem, which confirmed asphyxia as the cause of death. He rejected limiting Chhoti Devi's role to shocks, noting: "Merely because the doctor has stated that the injuries do not resemble those caused by electric shock does not absolve the petitioner of her involvement." Recoveries bolstered prima facie involvement.

Precedents were pivotal. The coordinate bench rulings yielded to Supreme Court wisdom in Rekha K.C. vs. Jyothibai (SLP Cri. No. 13801/2025), holding womanhood no bar to denial in serious cases. Echoing Mr. X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909), the court noted reluctance to grant bail post-trial commencement in murders, as it hampers witness appreciation.

Recent media coverage, including reports on Section 480 BNSS, aligned with the bench's view: gender privileges evaporate in heinous crimes.

Key Observations

"The contention that her role is limited only to administering electric shocks, and that such role stands ruled out by the doctor’s opinion, cannot be accepted."

"Merely because the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be released on bail giving her the benefit of provisos under Section 480 BNSS specially when the offences involved are serious in nature."

"In serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences... the Court... should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused."

Gavel Falls: Bail Dismissed, Trial Presses On

The application stood dismissed: "Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner." Chhoti Devi remains in custody as the trial advances. This decision reinforces stringent bail norms in murders, signaling courts will prioritize evidence and trial integrity over sympathetic factors—potentially influencing similar family violence cases amid evolving laws like BNSS.