Supreme Court Refuses to Send Sonam Raghuvanshi Back to Jail, Raises Questions Over Meghalaya HC Bail Order

Hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the June 29 bail order, a bench comprising M. M. Sundresh and Our Sheel reiterated the settled legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even in cases involving serious criminal allegations.

Supreme Court Stresses a Balanced Approach

The bench observed that Sonam had already spent time in custody and said courts must adopt a balanced approach while deciding bail-related matters.

“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 bench observed.

The judges added that they would have stayed the bail order had Sonam not already been released.

“Prima facie, we would have stayed the order of bail, but since she has already been released, we would not want to intervene.”

The court issued notice to Sonam Raghuvanshi and listed the matter for further hearing on July 9.

Why the Supreme Court Did Not Cancel the Bail

The Supreme Court explained that once an accused has been released pursuant to a judicial order, courts should exercise caution before directing the person’s return to prison, especially when the trial has already commenced.

The bench also reaffirmed that criminal allegations, however grave, must ultimately be tested during trial and cannot override the legal presumption of innocence until conviction.

When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the allegations as “shocking” and “chilling,” the judges responded that these issues would be decided during the course of the trial.

Supreme Court Questions Meghalaya High Court’s Reasoning

While allowing Sonam to remain on bail for now, the Supreme Court indicated that it was not convinced by the legal reasoning adopted by the Meghalaya High Court.

Justice Sundresh remarked that the court had “prima facie reservations” regarding the manner in which the High Court dealt with the matter.

The High Court had granted bail primarily because the arrest documents repeatedly cited Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with the offence of murder.

It also noted that the arrest papers contained references to unrelated offences, including offences outside India and desertion from the armed forces, describing the documents as an example of “total non-application of mind.”

However, the Supreme Court questioned whether such procedural defects alone justified bail in a murder case.

The bench observed that Sonam had been informed about the reasons for her arrest and had not raised these objections in her earlier unsuccessful 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 bench orally observed.

Meghalaya Government Opposes Bail

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court granted bail based on a technical error despite substantial evidence gathered during the investigation.

According to the prosecution, the murder of Raja Raghuvanshi was part of a pre-planned conspiracy allegedly involving Sonam, her alleged associate Raj Kushwaha and other accused persons.

The prosecution alleged that Sonam travelled to Meghalaya with her alleged accomplices, participated in the assault and later helped dispose of Raja’s body by throwing it into a gorge.