The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the State of Meghalaya’s challenge to the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam had never disputed the grounds of her arrest or the fact that she had surrendered before the police in any of her earlier bail applications. He submitted that the plea alleging non-communication of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was raised for the first time only in the proceedings culminating in the impugned bail order. According to the State, the arrest memo, transit remand application and the jurisdictional Magistrate’s order all recorded that Sonam was aware of the reasons for her arrest.
SG Mehta further contended that the prosecution case is that Sonam lured her husband to an isolated spot in Meghalaya, where he was allegedly murdered by hired assailants, before fleeing the State and surrendering only after the co-accused advised her to do so. He argued that the High Court erred in granting bail on the ground that the arrest was illegal owing to a typographical error mentioning Section 403 instead of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, despite earlier judicial findings treating the error as inconsequential.
During the hearing, the Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale questioned Senior Advocate Ardhendhumauli Prasad on why the issue of non-communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest opportunity and also sought clarification on the significance of the incorrect statutory provision mentioned in the arrest documents. The matter has been posted for further hearing.