Top News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave two options to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. The Court suggested that she either surrender to facilitate the examination of public witnesses while it decides the Meghalaya government's challenge to her bail, or contest the appeal by arguing the matter on merits.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale told Sonam's counsel that the Court could either hear and decide the Meghalaya government's appeal against the grant of bail on merits or direct her to surrender for the time being, allowing the trial to progress while the appeal remains pending. "You (Sonam's counsel) have two options. Either we will pass an order on merits or we will ask you to surrender, let the public witnesses question you - meanwhile we will decide the matter on merits (on bail)," the bench orally observed. Sonam's counsel sought time to obtain instructions and informed the Court that he would respond by Thursday. The Court notably adviced her counsel that "surrender" would be better for the accused's case, who is presently on bail.

Court Questions Accused's Conduct

During the hearing, the Court also questioned Sonam's conduct after the incident and asked why she had not raised the plea regarding non-supply of the "grounds of arrest" at the earliest.

Arguments From Both Sides

Opposing the bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that Sonam had voluntarily surrendered before the police and therefore could not subsequently challenge her arrest on the ground that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished. He further submitted that the defect in the arrest memo was merely a clerical error. "If the arrested accused is caught red-handed, no reason to provide grounds of arrest. If a person surrenders, then the arrested person cannot use the ground that grounds of arrest are not provided. If the accused herself comes to the police, no reason for police to arrest," Mehta submitted.

Sonam's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

Background of the Bail Challenge

The Meghalaya government has challenged the High Court's order upholding the trial court's decision granting bail to Sonam. The High Court had held that Sonam was entitled to bail as the mandatory "grounds of arrest" were not furnished to her at the time of arrest. According to the State, however, the grounds of arrest were duly intimated to Sonam and the only defect was a typographical error in the arrest memo. Instead of mentioning Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the offence of murder, the arrest memo inadvertently referred to Section 403(1), a provision that does not exist.

On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed prima facie reservations over the manner in which the Meghalaya High Court dealt with the case. The bench had observed that it was prima facie inclined to stay the bail order, particularly since it did not appear to be a case where the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to Sonam. The Court, however, refrained from passing an interim stay, taking note of the fact that Sonam had already been released on bail, had spent time in incarceration and had sought time to respond to the Meghalaya government's plea.

The matter will now be taken up on Thursday. (ANI)