Honeymoon Murder Case: Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Questions Delay In Raising Plea Of Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21) suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, surrender and face trial while questioning why she had not raised the plea of non-supply of grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity. The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government's challenge to the bail granted to Sonam by the High Court. During the hearing, Justice Sundresh posed a series of questions to Sonam's counsel regarding her conduct and the timing of the challenge to her arrest. “Your conduct itself—how do you explain? The case of the prosecution is that you along with the deceased went to that place. That is the foundational fact. So, we will not go into the other issues. Number two, regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time?” Justice Sundresh asked. The Bench also questioned the significance of the clerical error in the arrest memo, which formed the basis of the High Court's decision to grant bail. “How does the reasoning given by the High Court that Section 403 is Section 103, how does it matter at this stage of the case?” Justice Sundresh remarked. The Court indicated that it was inclined either to decide the matter on merits or ask Sonam to surrender pending the examination of key witnesses. “Either we will consider and pass an order on merits or we will pass an order making you surrender. We are putting it to you because we don't want to catch you by surprise and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us,” Justice Sundresh said. Suggesting what it considered the preferable course, the judge added, “I think the second option is better for you. If you want to argue further, we will hear you and then decide one way or the other.” The Court further observed that if Sonam chose to surrender, it could direct the trial court to record the evidence of public witnesses in the meantime and thereafter reconsider the bail issue. “If the second option is taken, we will issue directions to the trial court to examine the public witnesses and then we will take up the bail application,” the Bench said. Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the challenge was directed against the grant of bail rather than its cancellation. Mehta submitted that Sonam had allegedly conspired with her paramour and three hired assailants to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. According to the prosecution, Raja was lured to an isolated location in the hills, where he was killed and his body thrown into a gorge. The Solicitor General contended that Sonam surrendered only after the police arrested the co-accused and that she never disputed this fact in any of her earlier pleadings. He argued that the mention of “Section 403” of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error and could not amount to non-supply of grounds of arrest. Referring to the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), Mehta relied on Madhu Limaye case to contend that the purpose of communicating grounds of arrest is to prevent arbitrary arrests and to ensure that an accused is aware of the allegations against them. He further pointed out that Sonam had not objected to the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest either before the Magistrate or in her earlier bail applications, raising the issue only at a much later stage. “At the stage of the third application, somebody may have advised that this can be a ground of non-communication of grounds of arrest. Your Lordships may have to examine at what stage you raise that ground. You raise that ground at the first available opportunity,” Mehta submitted. The Court, however, clarified that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution's allegations in detail at this stage. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Thursday.The High Court had granted bail to Sonam on the ground that the arrest documents repeatedly referred to a non-existent “Section 403(1)” of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), indicating non-application of mind.The Supreme Court had earlier orally indicated that it would consider referring to larger bench the issue as to whether grounds of arrest are mandatorily required to be supplied in writing to the accused at the time of arrest, in view of conflicting decisions.On the previous dates, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that as far as the facts of the present case was concerned, written grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused. However, there was a typographical error because of which Section 103 BNS was wrongly mentioned as Section 403 BNS (which does not exist). The SG stated that the Courts granted bail solely on the ground that this clerical mistake amounted to non-supply of grounds of...

Honeymoon Murder Case: Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Questions Delay In Raising Plea Of Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Honeymoon Murder Case: Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Questions Delay In Raising Plea Of Non-Supply Of Arrest Grounds

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers