SC refuses to stay Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail, questions Meghalaya HC’s approach | Today’s news
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, one of the key accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raj Raghuvanshi, while hearing a plea filed by the Meghalaya government against the order. According to FLIGHTThe Supreme Court, however, expressed prima facie reservations about the manner in which the Meghalaya High Court had handled the case and sought a reply from Sonam Raghuvanshi before accepting the latest challenge.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu heard the matter after the Meghalaya government approached the apex court against the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bail granted to Raghuvanshi.
While the court said it was initially inclined to stay on bail, it ultimately decided against issuing a preliminary injunction because Sonam had already been released, spent time in custody and sought time to respond to the state’s request. The matter has now been remanded for further hearing on 9 July.
Read also | SC warns against uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence in legal process: “It is a serious mistake if…”
The Court states the need for a balanced approach
According to FLIGHTThe Supreme Court observed that although the charges against Raghuvanshi were serious, it had to weigh them against the settled legal principle that “bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception”.
“We are aware of the fact that she has been in custody for some time. We know that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. No matter how heinous the crime is, we will try to think of a balanced approach,” the bench observed.
The court also noted that Raghuvanshi had already been released on the order of the Supreme Court and that the charges against her would eventually be tested during the trial. At the same time, the court made it clear that it had reservations about the reasoning adopted by the Meghalaya High Court.
“Prima facie we have reservations about how the High Court will deal with it. We do not want to issue an order today. We will let things flow,” the judges said.
The court further questioned whether the high court was entitled to grant bail on what appeared to be a technicality related to the communication of the reasons for the arrest. It was learned that Raghuvanshi was informed about the reasons for the arrest and did not mention the issue in her earlier bail applications.
Read also | Quote of the Day by Daniel J Boorstin: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is…”
The state claims the murder was premeditated
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that the courts below had failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during the investigation.
According to FLIGHTdescribed the case as a “premeditated murder” and told the court that the prosecution had alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi was actively involved in the killing along with three co-accused before Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was allegedly dumped in the ravine.
Mehta also said that the supplementary charge sheet indicated that Raghuvanshi was carrying a gun as a “plan B” to kill her husband. He questioned how the same judge who had earlier denied her bail, citing the possibility of her absconding and the seriousness of the charges, later granted her relief without explaining the change in circumstances.
On the other hand, Raghuvanshi’s counsel argued that the reasons for the arrest were not communicated to her at the time of her arrest on June 9 and that she had no legal representation at the time. However, the Supreme Court said that what was relevant was whether these reasons were subsequently presented.
According to FLIGHTthe court directed Raghuvanshi to file a counter-affidavit in response to the Meghalaya government’s plea and listed the matter for hearing on July 9.
