It wasn’t. A woman arrested for allegedly conspiring to kill her husband on their honeymoon is now back in the spotlight; not for the crime itself, but for how she got bail. The Meghalaya High Court granted it because the police arrest memo cited Section 403; which doesn’t even exist in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; instead of Section 103(1) for murder. The Supreme Court isn’t buying it. During a recent hearing, justices directly asked Sonam Raghuvanshi: “What did you do after your husband was attacked?”; a question no one expected to hear in a bail review. The prosecution claims she lured him to a remote hill spot, hired killers through her paramour, and watched as he was killed before his body was thrown into a gorge. Yet, the High Court freed her over a clerical error. The SC is now deciding whether a typo should override public safety in a case this grave. And if they rule “yes,” it could open doors for others to walk free on similar technicalities; even in murder cases. The hearing resumes Thursday. What happens next might change how we see the thin line between justice and procedure.