The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of a Meghalaya High Court judgment that had upheld the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. While expressing ‘prima facie reservations’ about the High Court's reasoning, the court clarified that the stay would not automatically mean that Sonam would be taken back into custody, underscoring the legal distinction between suspending a bail order and cancelling bail.
The bench headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh was hearing an appeal filed by the Meghalaya government against the High Court's decision. The case has attracted nationwide attention since Raja Raghuvanshi was allegedly murdered during the couple's honeymoon, with investigators claiming that the killing was part of a pre-planned conspiracy orchestrated by his wife.
Appearing for the state, Tushar Mehta launched a sharp attack on the High Court's order, calling it ‘shocking’ and arguing that it overlooked crucial aspects of the prosecution's case.
According to Mehta, the investigation indicates that the couple travelled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon before Sonam allegedly led Raja to a secluded hilly location, where he was assaulted by three men allegedly brought there at her instance. The prosecution claims Raja was killed and his body thrown into a gorge.
Calling it ‘a predetermined murder’, Mehta argued that the allegations disclosed a carefully planned crime supported by substantial material collected during the investigation.
The Solicitor General also pointed out that an earlier bail application had been rejected after the court found prima facie evidence against Sonam and noted the possibility of her absconding. Yet, he argued, a subsequent order granted her bail by relying on Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita even though, according to him, no such provision exists.
When the bench asked about the status of the criminal proceedings, Mehta said the trial had commenced and that as many as 94 prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.
"This sets a wrong precedent," he submitted, contending that the High Court had failed to consider relevant material before extending relief to the accused.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Sundresh observed that the Supreme Court had "prima facie reservations" about the High Court's order.
"We will stay this order and see how the trial progresses," the bench observed.
Counsel appearing for Sonam opposed the appeal, arguing that her arrest itself was legally flawed. The defence submitted that she had been arrested even before the transit remand order was passed and that the mandatory grounds of arrest had not been communicated to her.
The bench, however, indicated that these questions would be examined in due course.
“Suppose you are given protection today, will the law debar the arrest tomorrow? Let us see how the trial proceeds. However heinous the crime is, bail is the rule and jail is an exception. So that we will consider,” Justice Sundresh remarked, reiterating the settled principle that liberty remains the norm unless compelling reasons justify continued incarceration.
The defence also argued that staying the High Court judgment would effectively nullify Sonam's bail, pointing out that she had already been released and was in Shillong.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that staying the High Court's judgment did not automatically result in the accused being sent back to prison. Once an accused has been released, the court observed, a separate legal process is required before custody can be restored.
Mehta maintained that the High Court had ignored important evidence while granting relief and submitted that the state had unsuccessfully sought an urgent stay before the roster Bench immediately after the judgment.
The hearing also briefly touched upon a larger concern over violent crimes involving intimate partners. Referring to another recent case, the Solicitor General remarked that such incidents appeared to be on the rise. Justice Sundresh responded that there was a need for introspection by different stakeholders, while adding that the court would refrain from making detailed observations because the matter was under consideration.
The Supreme Court has now issued notice to Sonam Raghuvanshi and granted time for her to file a response. With the High Court's judgment remaining stayed for now, the apex court will examine whether the bail was granted after a proper appreciation of the facts and applicable law, even as the trial in the sensational honeymoon murder case proceeds in Meghalaya.
