New Delhi — A five‑judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to order the remand of Sonam Raghuvanshi, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, arguing that “regardless of how heinous the crime is, we will try to think of a balanced approach.”
The court’s decision came after the Delhi High Court had directed the trial court to consider sending Raghuvanshi back to prison pending the hearing of a petition challenging the validity of her conviction. The Supreme Court, however, said the petition did not demonstrate a “substantial miscarriage of justice” that would justify a custodial order.
Raghuvanshi was convicted in 2021 for the 2015 murder of a 16‑year‑old boy in Delhi’s Rohini area. The trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment, a verdict upheld by the High Court. Her petition to the apex court raised procedural questions about the trial court’s handling of forensic evidence, but the bench noted that the procedural lapses, if any, did not automatically merit a custodial order.
“While the gravity of the offence cannot be ignored, the principle of proportionality and the presumption of innocence until a final judgment must also be respected,” the bench said in its order. The judges also highlighted the need to avoid setting a precedent where every appeal automatically triggers a jail term, which could “overburden the correctional system and undermine the rights of the accused.”
Legal analysts say the ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s cautious stance on custodial remand, especially in cases where the appellant is already serving a sentence. “The court is signaling that a balance must be struck between the state’s interest in ensuring public safety and the individual’s right to liberty pending final adjudication,” said senior advocate Arvind Kumar, who was not involved in the case.
Human‑rights groups, which have previously criticized the handling of Raghuvanshi’s trial, welcomed the court’s emphasis on a “balanced approach” but urged continued scrutiny of the forensic evidence that formed the basis of her conviction.
The case will now proceed on its merits, with the Supreme Court set to hear detailed arguments on the alleged procedural deficiencies later this month.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court’s refusal to order a custodial remand reflects a broader judicial trend of limiting pre‑emptive detention, even for serious offences, when procedural challenges are raised. By framing its decision around proportionality, the bench is signaling that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not, by itself, warrant imprisonment. This stance may influence future petitions seeking bail or remand in high‑profile criminal cases, potentially curbing the state’s ability to keep convicted individuals incarcerated pending appeal.
Sources
– Hindustan Times, “‘An exception…’: Why Supreme Court refused to send Sonam Raghuvanshi back to jail,” https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/an-exception-why-supreme-court-refused-to-send-sonam-raghuvanshi-back-to-jail-101783072865152.html
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
