S.480 BNSS | Merely Being A Woman Is No Ground For Bail In Serious Offences Like Murder: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation. The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS. The Court made...
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.
The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.
“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 Court said.
For context, the allegations in the present case involved strangulation and assault of the deceased and also administering electric shocks to her after the strangulation to assure her death.
It was argued by the applicant's counsel that petitioner was implicated based on recovery of an electric wire and broken bangles of the deceased, from her. Since there was no other evidence and as per doctor's opinion the injuries on deceased's body were not due to electric shocks, it could not be said that the mother-in-law played any role in the strangulation that led to death.
After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the contention raised by the counsel that MIL's role was being specified only to the extent of administering electric shocks. It was submitted that since the doctor opined that the injuries on the body did not correspond to electric shocks, applicant's involvement was negated.
In this background, the Court observed that recovery of wire and deceased's broken bangles were a reasonable ground to believe that there was applicant's involvement in the offence.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179