New Delhi, July 10 -- Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, has told the Supreme Court that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Sonam opposed the Meghalaya government's plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to her by the Meghalaya High Court, arguing that the prosecution's case is based only on suspicion and circumstantial evidence. She said mere allegations cannot be treated as proof of guilt and urged the court not to interfere with the bail order. "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated," Sonam said in her reply, adding that the prosecution had built its case on assumptions rather than credible evidence. She maintained that she had been wrongly accused in the case.
The affidavit was filed after the Meghalaya government approached the Supreme Court against the June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision granting bail to Sonam. Hearing the matter, the Supreme Court declined to send Sonam back to jail, observing that she had already been released after the high court's order. While the bench expressed reservations about the reasoning adopted by the high court in granting bail, it said it was not inclined to interfere at this stage. The court noted that there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is established and said the allegations against Sonam would ultimately be tested during the trial. It also observed that if bail had been granted solely because of a procedural defect in the arrest process, nothing in law prevented the authorities from arresting an accused again after complying with the legal requirements. During the hearing, Sonam's counsel argued that she had not been properly informed of the grounds of her arrest and was denied meaningful legal assistance at the time of her arrest. The Supreme Court, however, questioned why these objections had not been raised before the lower courts during her earlier bail applications. Representing the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case involved a "shocking" and premeditated murder and that the high court had granted bail because of a typographical error in the arrest documents. According to the state, the arrest memo mistakenly cited Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with murder. Mehta submitted that the mistake was purely clerical and did not prejudice the accused. He also pointed out that Sonam's bail had been rejected on three previous occasions, with courts finding prima facie material against her. During the latest hearing, the Supreme Court also indicated that it may consider referring to a larger bench the legal question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo is sufficient to invalidate an arrest and justify the grant of bail.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.