#equalitybeforelaw

Could a woman accused in a murder case get bail only because she is female? Rajasthan High Court has now made its stand clear.

JAIPUR: Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu of the Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a 63-year-old mother-in-law accused in the alleged murder of her daughter-in-law. The Court observed that merely because an accused is a woman, it does not automatically entitle her to bail when serious allegations like murder are involved.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Padukala, District Nagaur. The accused woman had approached the High Court after her bail plea was earlier rejected by the Sessions Judge, Merta. The case involved offences under Sections 103(1), 331(7), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

According to the prosecution, the deceased woman was allegedly assaulted and strangulated by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. It was also alleged that electric shocks were given to the victim after strangulation to ensure her death.

Read Also: Can Husband Stop Maintenance If Wife Is Working? Indian Law, Supreme Court Judgments & The Reality Men Must Know

The counsel for the accused argued that there were only “omnibus allegation against all accused” and claimed that the mother-in-law’s role was limited to administering electric shocks.

It was argued that the postmortem doctor had stated the injuries did not resemble electric shock injuries and that there was “no other evidence” linking her to strangulation or assault. The accused also sought bail under Section 480 BNSS on the ground that she was a woman.

However, the complainant opposed the plea and argued that all three accused were specifically involved in strangulating the deceased. After examining the charge-sheet and postmortem report, the High Court noted that the cause of death was “Asphyxia” and refused to accept the argument that the accused had only a limited role in the incident.

Read Also: Why India Needs Gender-Neutral Domestic Violence Laws? The Legal Gap Nobody Wants To Discuss

The Court observed:

“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 in the incident.”

The High Court further noted that the recovery of wire and broken bangles had been made from the accused woman, which created a reasonable ground to believe her involvement in the offence. The Court observed that the allegations involved a “serious offence of murder” and therefore bail could not be granted casually.

Read Also: How To Remove Name From 498A FIR: An Innocent Husband’s Legal Guide

While rejecting the argument that the accused should get bail merely because she was a woman, the Court made an important observation. It stated:

“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.”

The defence had also argued parity with another co-accused who had already been granted bail. However, the High Court clarified that the co-accused was granted bail because he was a juvenile and therefore no benefit of parity could be extended to the present accused.

The Court further observed that granting bail at such a stage could impact the pending trial and appreciation of oral evidence of witnesses. Considering the seriousness of allegations and stage of trial, the Rajasthan High Court finally dismissed the bail application filed by the accused mother-in-law.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Chhoti Devi @ Chhotudi vs State Of Rajasthan

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9213/2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu

Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:20600

Date of Order: 01/05/2026

Counsels:

For Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary

For Respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ramavtar

Key Takeaways

Serious criminal allegations should not become weak merely because the accused is a woman. Equality before law must work both ways.

Courts are slowly reinforcing that sympathy cannot override gravity of allegations in offences involving d*ath and domestic violence.

Medical contradictions alone do not automatically erase criminal liability when surrounding evidence still points toward involvement.

Once trial begins and witnesses start speaking, courts are becoming more cautious in granting bail in grave offences.

The growing misuse of “gender-based sympathy” in criminal litigation is finally being tested against principles of equal accountability.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Chhoti Devi @ Chhotudi vs State Of Rajasthan

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.