The Supreme Court of India has refused to suspend the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the primary accused in the high-profile murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. While a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu expressed preliminary reservations regarding the High Court's judgment that granted her relief, they cited Sonam's prior release from custody as the reason for not staying the order.
Despite this decision, the apex court has agreed to review the Meghalaya government's petition challenging the bail order and has issued a notice seeking Sonam Raghuvanshi's response. The state's Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, strongly argued against the High Court's decision, describing it as "really shocking."
Premeditated Murder Allegations
Mehta presented the case as a premeditated murder, detailing that the couple traveled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon, where Raja Raghuvanshi was allegedly killed and his body disposed of in a gorge. He stated that Sonam and three accomplices were involved in the physical assault. Sonam Raghuvanshi was subsequently apprehended in Uttar Pradesh after absconding.
Typographical Error in Bail Decision
A central point of the Meghalaya government's challenge is the High Court's decision to grant bail reportedly based on a technicality. Mehta contended that bail was awarded because police mistakenly cited Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of the correct Section 103(1) BNS, which pertains to punishment for murder. The Solicitor General argued that such a clerical error, which caused no prejudice to the accused, should not be grounds for bail, referencing the Supreme Court's precedent in State of Karnataka v. Darshan.
Defence Arguments and Court's Stance
Sonam Raghuvanshi's counsel maintained that the grounds for her arrest were never properly communicated. They also emphasized that she is adhering to stringent bail conditions, which include remaining in Shillong. With the trial already underway and 94 witnesses expected to be examined, the defence argued against her continued incarceration.
Justice Sundresh reiterated the bench's reluctance to stay a bail order once the accused has been released. He remarked, "But for the fact that she has been released, we would have stayed the order." Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's agreement to examine the legality of the High Court's reasoning indicates a continued scrutiny of the bail decision.