Chhoti Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2026

The accused (mother-in-law) was charged along with her husband and son for the murder of her daughter-in-law by strangulation.

Allegations also included assault and administration of electric shocks after strangulation to ensure death.

The prosecution relied on recovery of an electric wire and broken bangles of the deceased allegedly from the applicant.

The applicant argued that there was no credible evidence of her involvement in strangulation or murder.

It was further argued that medical opinion did not support the claim of electric shock injuries, weakening prosecution allegations.

The defence also contended that being a woman, the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 480 BNSS.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing seriousness of allegations and material evidence.

The Court rejected the argument that being a female accused automatically entitled her to bail under Section 480 BNSS.

It held that gender alone is not a valid ground for bail in cases involving serious offences.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Rekha K.C. v. Jyotibhai and Anr.

It observed that the allegations involved strangulation and deliberate acts to ensure death, making the offence grave.

The Court held that recovery of an electric wire and broken bangles constituted reasonable grounds to infer involvement.

The argument based on medical opinion regarding absence of electric shock injuries was not sufficient to negate involvement at the bail stage.

The Court found prima facie material linking the accused to the offence and rejected the bail application.

The Court reaffirmed that bail jurisprudence under BNSS remains governed by gravity of offence and prima facie evidence, not merely statutory relaxations.

It clarified that gender-based bail protection is not absolute, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like murder.

The judgment strengthens the principle that courts must evaluate seriousness of allegations and evidentiary links at the bail stage.

It distinguishes between final guilt determination and prima facie assessment, emphasizing cautious judicial scrutiny.

The reliance on material recovery (electric wire, broken bangles) shows that circumstantial evidence is relevant even at bail stage.

The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s approach in Rekha K.C. v. Jyotibhai and Anr., limiting automatic bail entitlement.

The decision reinforces that bail discretion must balance liberty with societal interest in serious crimes.