The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, while hearing the Meghalaya government’s challenge to the order.

Although the apex court allowed the bail to continue for now, it said it had prima facie reservations about the manner in which the Meghalaya High Court dealt with the case and sought a response from Raghuvanshi before taking a final decision.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 9.

Also Read | ‘You have to respect the CM’: Madras HC denies DMK MLA bail over Joseph Vijay remarks

No haste where liberty is at stake

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu noted that Raghuvanshi had already been released from custody and said it was not inclined to pass an interim order sending her back to jail at this stage.

The court observed that while the allegations against her were serious, it had to balance them against the settled legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

The bench remarked, “Prima facie, we have reservations about how the High Court is dealing with it. We don’t want to pass an order today. Let things go on.”

Procedure takes centre stage

The Meghalaya government moved the Supreme Court after the High Court upheld a Shillong court’s order granting bail to Raghuvanshi.

The High Court had held that the investigating agency failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused, amounting to a violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest procedures.

The state has argued that the High Court placed undue emphasis on procedural lapses despite the gravity of the allegations.

More evidence awaits the court’s gaze

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case involved a “pre-determined murder” and submitted that the chargesheet alleged Raghuvanshi actively participated in the killing along with the co-accused before Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was thrown into a gorge.

Mehta further told the court that a supplementary chargesheet alleged she was carrying a gun as a “Plan B” to kill her husband. He contended that the seriousness of the allegations could not be overlooked on what he described as a technical ground relating to the arrest procedure.

Counsel appearing for Raghuvanshi maintained that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to her at the time of her arrest and argued that this violated her legal rights.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court indicated that the relevant question was whether those grounds had subsequently been furnished.

The bench directed Raghuvanshi to file a counter-affidavit in response to the Meghalaya government’s petition and permitted both sides to place additional documents, including relevant portions of the chargesheet, on record before the next hearing.

Also Read | ‘Serious lapse…’: Supreme Court flags dangers of unverified AI in legal process

FAQs

Q1: Why did the Supreme Court refuse to stay Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail?
Ans: The Supreme Court said it had reservations about the Meghalaya High Court’s reasoning but declined to grant an interim stay and will hear the matter further on July 9.

Q2: Why was Sonam Raghuvanshi granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court?
Ans: The Meghalaya High Court held that the investigating agency failed to properly communicate the grounds of her arrest, violating constitutional and statutory safeguards.