JAIPUR<\/em>: Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu<\/strong> of the Rajasthan High Court<\/a><\/strong> 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<\/strong> are involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>. The case involved offences under Sections 103(1), 331(7), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a> (BNS).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the prosecution, the deceased woman was allegedly assaulted and strangulated by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law<\/strong>. It was also alleged that electric shocks were given to the victim after strangulation to ensure her death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The counsel for the accused argued that there were only \u201comnibus allegation against all accused\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and claimed that the mother-in-law\u2019s role was limited to administering electric shocks<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was argued that the postmortem doctor had stated the injuries did not resemble electric shock injuries and that there was \u201cno other evidence\u201d linking her to strangulation or assault. The accused also sought bail under Section 480 BNSS<\/strong> on the ground that she was a woman<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cAsphyxia\u201d<\/strong> and refused to accept the argument that the accused had only a limited role in the incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMerely 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court further noted that the recovery of wire and broken bangles<\/strong> 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 \u201cserious offence of murder\u201d and therefore bail could not be granted casually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While rejecting the argument that the accused should get bail merely because she was a woman, the Court made an important observation. It stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMerely 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The defence had also argued parity with another co-accused<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> filed by the accused mother-in-law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 483 BNSS<\/a><\/strong><\/td> High Court bail provision.<\/td> Accused filed bail plea before Rajasthan High Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 480 BNSS<\/strong><\/td> Special consideration for women in bail matters.<\/td> Court refused to grant bail only because accused was a woman.<\/td><\/tr> Section 103(1) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for murder.<\/td> Applied due to allegations of strangulation and death.<\/td><\/tr> Section 331(7) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Deals with serious domestic violence-related offences.<\/td> Charges framed due to alleged assault and death of daughter-in-law.<\/td><\/tr> Section 3(5) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Joint liability for common intention.<\/td> Applied as all accused were alleged to have acted together.<\/td><\/tr> Rekha K.C. vs. Jyothibai<\/strong><\/td> Woman alone not entitled to bail in serious offences.<\/td> Relied upon to reject bail plea.<\/td><\/tr> Mr. X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909)<\/strong><\/td> Courts should be cautious in granting bail after trial starts.<\/td> Applied because witness examination had already begun.<\/td><\/tr> Asphyxia (Postmortem Finding)<\/strong><\/td> Indicates death due to lack of oxygen.<\/td> Supported allegation of strangulation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n