New Delhi [India], July 3 : The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, a key accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, on a plea filed by the Meghalaya government.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu, however, orally expressed prima facie reservations over the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the case. Sonam was granted bail by the trial court, which was later upheld by the Meghalaya High Court.
The Supreme Court stated that it was prima facie inclined to stay the bail order, particularly since this was not a case where the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to Sonam. It, however, decided against passing an interim order of stay after taking into account the fact that Sonam had already been released on bail, had spent some time in incarceration and had sought time to respond to the Meghalaya government's plea.
The bench said it would have to adopt a balanced approach, keeping in mind the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations.
"We are conscious of the fact that she was in incarceration for a while. We know that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Regardless of how heinous the crime is, we will try to think of a balanced approach."
The Court also took into account that Sonam had already been released pursuant to the High Court's order and said that the allegations against her were ultimately a matter to be decided during the trial.
"She's released now? It's a matter to be decided in the trial. When she's released, we can't order..."
The Court nevertheless made it clear that it had reservations over the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the case.
"Prima facie, we have reservations about how the High Court is dealing with it. We don't want to pass an order today. Let things go on."
During the hearing, the Court also observed that this was not a case where Sonam had never been informed of the grounds of arrest. It pointed out that the issue had not been raised in her earlier bail applications.
"Fact remains you have been informed. Earlier bail applications, you did not raise the issue. It is not the case that grounds have not been provided."
The Court further questioned whether the High Court was right in granting bail on a technical ground and pointed to an apparent error in the provision referred to.
"Is the Court right in granting bail on a technical ground? The provision shown does not exist."
The bench also questioned whether any defect in the communication of the grounds of arrest would prevent the authorities from arresting Sonam again.
"Would the law debar them from arresting you tomorrow? Let us assume today... That's why we said..."
In its order, the Supreme Court recorded the submission of Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta that the courts below had failed to consider the relevant material and that the nature of the allegations against Sonam was serious. The Court also took note of the fact that her earlier bail applications had been rejected.
The Court accordingly asked Sonam to file a counter affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing next Thursday.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, SGI Tushar Mehta described the case as "really shocking" and argued that the murder was pre-determined.
"I'll show four pages. Husband and wife go to... Pre-determined murder. Three accomplices travelling with the wife."
Mehta submitted that Sonam had actively participated in the assault, according to the chargesheet, and that she and the three other accused had killed Raja before throwing his body into a gorge.
"Sonam participated in the assault as per the chargesheet. Body thrown in the valley. She, along with three others, first kills Raja and then throws the body into the gorge."
The Court then asked the State who had actually killed Raja.
"Who actually killed the husband?"
Mehta further submitted that the supplementary chargesheet revealed that Sonam was also carrying a gun as an alternative plan to kill her husband.
"In the supplementary chargesheet, it is found Sonam was carrying a gun also as a Plan B to kill her husband Raja."
The SGI also questioned how the same judge who had earlier rejected Sonam's bail plea after recording serious apprehensions against her subsequently granted her bail.
He pointed out that while rejecting the earlier bail plea, the judge had recorded that there was every likelihood of Sonam absconding and that suspicion weighed heavily against her.
"The same learned judge had rejected the second bail. Every likelihood that she will abscond. The judge records that. No explanation. Suspicion weighs heavily on the petitioner."
Mehta argued that despite these earlier findings, the same judge later granted bail without explaining the change in approach.
"She again files bail. The same judge who recorded such suspicion and rejected bail has now granted bail."
The SGI further submitted that the Magistrate had provided Sonam with the grounds of arrest and that she had ultimately been informed of them. According to the State, the High Court had granted her bail only on a technical ground.
"The Magistrate had provided her grounds of arrest. Ultimately, Sonam was informed about the grounds of arrest. Only on a technical ground she has now been granted bail."
When the Court asked about the stage of the case, the Meghalaya government informed the bench that the trial had commenced.
Sonam's counsel however interjected that only four out of ninety witnesses had been examined, by the Court, implying that the trial will take a long time.
"Stage of trial. Only four out of ninety witnesses have been questioned", Sonam's lawyer submitted.
Sonam's counsel argued that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to her when she was arrested on June 9. The counsel also submitted that Sonam was not represented by a lawyer at that stage.
"No grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner. On June 9, she was arrested. She was not even represented then."
The Court, however, indicated that the issue the High Court ought to have considered was whether the grounds had subsequently been served on Sonam.
"What the Court should've done is... the incidental issue would be whether it was so served..."
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to stay Sonam's bail, directed her to file a counter affidavit to the Meghalaya government's plea and posted the matter for further hearing next Thursday, July 9.