Supreme Court refuses to stay Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail granted by Meghalaya High Court

The Supreme Court Friday refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, arrested in connection with the murder of her husband, Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, even as it expressed reservations about the manner in which the Meghalaya High Court dealt with the matter.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu issued notice on the state’s plea challenging the June 29 order of the high court, which upheld the trial court order granting Sonam bail in the case.

The bench said it did not want to cancel the bail since the order is already in effect and she had been released from custody.

However, initially, the bench said it will stay the high court order and observe how the trial proceeds.

But when it was pointed out that she had already been released following the high court order, Justice Sundresh said, “Then we cannot stay the order. But for the fact that she is released, prima facie we were inclined to stay”.

‘Really shocking case’

A Shillong court granted her bail on April 27, saying the grounds of arrest had not been effectively communicated to her. The state’s appeal challenging the order was dismissed by the Meghalaya High Court on June 29.

Appearing for Meghalaya Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said it was a “really shocking case”.

Story continues below this ad

“It’s a predetermined murder. There are three accomplices travelling along with the wife. The wife takes the husband to some hilly areas and kills him. She participates in the assault, that’s the chargesheet. And the body is thrown in the valley. It is found almost after 10 days,” he submitted.

Responding to the bench’s query as to who killed him, Mehta said, “The three assailants brought by the lady and she herself. She was also part of the physical assault… She had absconded after the crime and was arrested in Meghalaya.”

Mehta pointed out that in the transit remand order, the magistrate court had said it was satisfied that the accused were well aware of the reasons or grounds of their arrest.

Other bail pleas

The Solicitor General said the first three bail applications of Raghuvanshi were rejected, and that, while dismissing the second bail plea, the court had said there was every chance she would abscond.

Story continues below this ad

After the third bail plea, “a supplementary chargesheet is filed where it’s said that she was having a plan B, carrying a gun”. “That if her husband cannot be killed by assaulting him on the hills, he can be killed by way of a weapon. The weapon was recovered…”

Mehta pointed out that the fourth bail application was filed “on the ground that in the grounds of arrest given, instead of Section 103 BNS, what is mentioned is Section 403”. “There is no Section 403 in BNS. And the magistrate has explained to her the grounds of arrest. That’s a matter of record.”

Terming it a typographical error, the senior law officer said that in several judgements, the SC had said: “don’t release someone on technical grounds”. He added that the high court order confirming the bail “is really painful”.

Number of witnesses

The court then asked about the trial’s stage.

“How many witnesses have been examined?” asked Justice Sundresh.

“The witnesses are being examined, but they are all her employees,” Mehta said, adding that the high court order sets a wrong precedent.

Story continues below this ad

The counsel appearing for Raghuvanshi said that only 4 of 90 witnesses have been examined so far.

Towards the end of the hearing, Mehta also pointed out that such cases are on the rise across the country.

Justice Sundresh said the court had dealt with a similar case from Bengaluru but declined to say anything further. “We think an element of introspection is required from relevant stakeholders. We don’t want to say anything beyond,” Justice Sundresh said.