The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Meghalaya High Court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025.
The Vacation Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the High Court in granting bail and agreed to examine the State government’s challenge to the order. The Apex Court also issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the State of Meghalaya and sought the respondent’s reply.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the High Court’s judgment as legally unsustainable and argued that bail had been granted solely on the basis of a clerical error in the arrest memo despite the gravity of the allegations and the existence of substantial material collected during investigation.
The Solicitor General submitted that the case involved a premeditated conspiracy in which Sonam Raghuvanshi, along with three alleged accomplices, murdered her husband while the couple was on their honeymoon in Meghalaya. According to the prosecution, Raja Raghuvanshi was allegedly assaulted on a hilltop before his body was thrown into a gorge. It was further contended that Sonam absconded after the incident and was subsequently arrested from Uttar Pradesh.
Referring to the High Court’s reasoning, Mehta submitted that bail had been granted because the arrest memo and related documents mistakenly referred to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which prescribes punishment for murder. He argued that the incorrect mention of a non-existent provision was merely a typographical error and could not invalidate the arrest or justify the grant of bail.
The Solicitor General further pointed out that the Magistrate who authorised the transit remand in Uttar Pradesh had specifically recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused. He also submitted that Sonam’s earlier bail application had already been rejected on merits by the trial court and that the plea regarding non-communication of grounds of arrest had not been raised at that stage.
Mehta argued that the High Court’s approach was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Darshan, which held that clerical or typographical mistakes that do not cause prejudice to the accused cannot, by themselves, constitute a valid ground for granting bail. He also informed the Bench that the trial was already underway and that the prosecution proposed to examine 94 witnesses.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh observed that the Court had certain prima facie reservations regarding the High Court’s judgment. The Bench questioned the accused’s counsel on why the issue concerning the alleged defect in the arrest memo was raised only in the subsequent bail application despite earlier proceedings.
The Court further noted that the grounds of arrest appeared to have been explained before the Magistrate and questioned whether the High Court was justified in granting bail solely because of the erroneous mention of a statutory provision when the accused had previously been denied bail on merits.
Counsel appearing for Sonam Raghuvanshi maintained that the grounds of arrest had never been effectively communicated to her and argued that she had already been released pursuant to the bail order and was complying with all conditions imposed by the trial court, including remaining in Shillong. It was also submitted that the trial had commenced and there was no justification for continued incarceration.
After learning that the accused had already been released from custody, the Supreme Court declined to suspend the bail order. Justice Sundresh observed that had the accused remained in custody, the Court would have considered staying the High Court’s order. However, since she had already been enlarged on bail, the Bench was not inclined to interfere at the interim stage.
The Solicitor General nevertheless urged the Court to consider the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of the accused absconding. The Bench observed that those issues would ultimately be examined during trial while making it clear that the State’s challenge to the bail order would remain pending for consideration.
The case arises out of the alleged murder of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam shortly after their marriage on May 12, 2025. The couple went missing on May 23 after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat. Their rented scooter was later recovered abandoned near Sohrarim, and Raja’s body was discovered on June 2 in a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills district.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, who remained untraceable until June 8, was subsequently located near a roadside eatery on the Varanasi-Ghazipur highway in Uttar Pradesh. The Meghalaya Police later alleged that she had conspired with her alleged lover, Raj Kushwaha, and hired assailants to execute the murder as part of a pre-planned conspiracy motivated by financial and personal considerations. The investigating agency has since filed a chargesheet running into more than 700 pages detailing the alleged conspiracy and supporting evidence.
On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld the trial court’s order granting bail, observing that repeated reference to a non-existent statutory provision in the arrest documents indicated lack of due application of mind by the investigating agency. The High Court had held that the defect went to the root of the legality of the arrest and concluded that the foundational basis of the prosecution case stood vitiated.
The post Meghalaya honeymoon murder case: Supreme Court declines to stay bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi appeared first on India Legal.