Raja Raghuvanshi murder case: Sonam Raghuvanshi to not go to jail, says Supreme Court. Here's why

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the sensational Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, even as it expressed prima facie reservations over the reasoning adopted by the High Court in granting her relief. The Supreme Court, however, agreed to examine the Meghalaya government's plea challenging the bail order and issued notice to Sonam seeking her response, according to a LiveLaw report. 

A partial working days bench, including Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu, heard the matter. While the bench observed that it had concerns about the High Court's judgment, it refused to suspend the bail because Sonam had already been released from custody.

READ THIS: Meghalaya honeymoon horror: Sonam Raghuvanshi plotted Raja Raghuvanshi’s murder three days after wedding

"Prima facie, we have some observations about the High Court's judgment," Justice Sundresh remarked during the hearing.

Addressing Sonam's counsel, Justice Sundresh questioned whether bail could be granted merely because of a typographical error in the arrest documents.

"Is the Court right in granting bail on the technical ground that the wrong provision was quoted, especially when bail was rejected on merits earlier?" the judge asked.

Appearing for the State of Meghalaya, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the High Court's order as "really shocking" and argued that the case involved a carefully planned murder.

"This is the case where both of them went on honeymoon in Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. There were three accomplices. She killed her husband on a hill and threw the dead body into a gorge. The three assailants and the lady herself were part of the physical assault. She absconded and was arrested in Uttar Pradesh," Mehta submitted before the court.

DON'T MISS: ‘Siya is Mini Sonam’: Raja Raghuvanshi’s mother compares Pune murder accused to daughter-in-law

The Solicitor General argued that the High Court granted bail solely because police mistakenly mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1) BNS, which deals with punishment for murder.

"There is no Section 403 in the BNS. Section 103 was mistakenly typed as 403. The Magistrate had earlier explained the grounds of arrest to the accused," Mehta told the bench.

He further contended that the typographical error caused no prejudice to the accused and relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Darshan, which held that clerical errors that do not prejudice an accused cannot by themselves justify bail.

Mehta also informed the court that the trial had already commenced and that the prosecution intends to examine 94 witnesses. He argued that Sonam posed a flight risk and should not remain on bail.

However, Sonam's counsel maintained that the grounds of arrest were never properly communicated to her and argued that she was complying with strict bail conditions requiring her to remain in Shillong. The defence also submitted that with the trial already underway, there was no justification for continued incarceration.

ALSO READ: Pune murder case: Police cites lack of evidence, seeks lie detector test of Siya Goyal

Justice Sundresh observed that since Sonam had already been released, the court was reluctant to stay the bail order.

"If she is released, then we cannot stay the order," the judge said, adding, "But for the fact that she has been released, we would have stayed the order."

The bench nevertheless issued notice on Meghalaya's petition challenging the bail order and agreed to examine the legality of the High Court's reasoning.