A major development emerged on Tuesday in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, with prime accused Sonam Raghuvanshi surrendering before the concerned court in Shillong, Meghalaya, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
The Supreme Court had recently cancelled Sonam’s bail and directed her to surrender before the concerned court within three weeks. Following the order, she appeared before the Shillong court and surrendered within the stipulated period.
With Sonam’s surrender, the judicial proceedings and trial in the high-profile murder case are now expected to move forward more quickly. During the trial, the prosecution will present its case based on the available evidence and witness statements, while the defence will put forward its arguments.
The Raja Raghuvanshi murder case has attracted nationwide attention. The framing of charges and examination of evidence will be among the key steps during the upcoming proceedings.
Supreme Court had cancelled Sonam’s bail
Earlier, the Supreme Court had cancelled Sonam’s bail while hearing a petition filed by the Meghalaya Police.
The court directed her to surrender within three weeks. It observed that the High Court and the trial court had erred in granting her bail based on alleged deficiencies in communicating the grounds of her arrest.
The Supreme Court also directed that the trial be completed within six months.
The court clarified that if the trial is not completed within the stipulated period, Sonam Raghuvanshi would be free to apply for bail again.
Court said grounds of arrest had been communicated
The Supreme Court had observed that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. However, it said there had not been a complete failure to communicate the grounds of Sonam’s arrest in this case.
According to the court, completely failing to communicate the grounds of arrest and providing inadequate information about them are two different situations. Therefore, it held that granting bail solely on the basis of a technical deficiency was not justified.
The court also noted that Sonam had confirmed before a magistrate that she had received the grounds of arrest and relevant documents.
It further clarified that even if there was any procedural deficiency in the arrest, the investigating agency could arrest the accused again if necessary.
