The Supreme Court on Friday refused to send Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year, back to jail for the time being, even as she expressed reservations over the Meghalaya High Court’s order granting her bail.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Shil Nagu accepted the Meghalaya government’s appeal challenging the Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling. She issued a notice to Sonam, refusing to continue with the bail order after learning that she had been released. “Prima facie, we would have stayed the bail order, but since she has already been released, we do not want to interfere,” the bench noted, sending the matter for further hearing on July 9.
The court noted that although it did not like the logic adopted by the Supreme Court, it was equally aware of the consequences of sending the accused back to prison after being released on bail. “We are aware that whatever the seriousness of the alleged crime, there is a presumption of innocence,” the bench said, adding that it would consider issuing appropriate orders to expedite the trial after Sonam files her reply.
Read also: How could ‘BJP and Amit Shah Murdabad’ slogans be a reason for genocide, asks Bombay HC
The case relates to the murder of 29-year-old Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who traveled to Meghalaya with Sonam after their wedding in May 2025. The couple disappeared after checking out of a house in Nongriat on May 23. Raja’s body was later recovered from a gorge near Wisawdong Falls in Sohra, while Sonam was traced days later in Uttar Pradesh.
Meghalaya Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said on Friday that the case involved a “shocking” and “premeditated” murder, and that the Supreme Court had erred in granting bail based on what was essentially a typographical error in arrest documents.
Read also: The Chinese app behind viral videos stopping e-rickshaws: How it works and how to prevent it
“The wife travels to Meghalaya with three accomplices. She participates in the assault on the husband… The husband was killed and the body was dumped in the forest. She later escaped and was arrested in Uttar Pradesh,” Mehta added. He told the court that Sonam’s bail had been rejected on three occasions earlier, as the court had recorded prima facie material pointing to her role in the murder.
Mehta maintained that the Supreme Court granted bail only because documents related to the arrest wrongly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act instead of Section 103, which deals with murders.
“There was only one typographical error and that was that Section 103 became 403 under the National Services Act,” he said, relying on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Darshan case to argue that procedural lapses warrant relief only when they cause actual harm to the accused.
Read also: ‘Consider switching sides’: Bombay HC’s remarks on ‘horse trading’ earn praise from Uddhav Sena
The court seemed to find merit in the state’s submissions, and noted that the Supreme Court’s reasoning raises several questions. “Prima facie, we have our reservations about how the Supreme Court handled this matter,” Justice Sandrich said.
The court noted that Sonam was informed of the reasons for her arrest, and never contested the alleged defect during her three failed attempts at bail.
During her appearance for Sonam, her lawyer responded that the defect went beyond the incorrect legal text, and said that she was never informed of the reasons for her arrest.
But the court also noted that if bail is based solely on a procedural error in reporting the reasons for arrest, nothing in the law prevents the authorities from arresting the accused again after complying with the legal requirements.
At one stage, the court indicated that it was inclined to stay the bail order and at the same time consider expediting the trial. Mehta and Sonam’s lawyer informed the bench that she has been released from prison and is in Shillong, prompting the bench to reconsider its approach.
When Mehta reiterated that the facts were “shocking and horrifying”, the bench responded that these allegations would ultimately be tested during the trial. “These are facts and issues that have to be decided during the trial. We are also aware that there are certain criteria that have to be met at the time of granting bail. But after she is released, we may not want to interfere,” the court said.
The Supreme Court on June 29 upheld an order by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, granting bail to Sonam after finding that the police had failed to effectively communicate the reasons for the arrest.
Justice W Dingdoh held that the arrest documents repeatedly cited Section 403 of the Security Services Act rather than Section 103 which deals with murder, and also included several unrelated allegations, including suspicion of Sonam being a deserter from the armed forces and committing crimes outside India. The Supreme Court considered that the documents reflect “a complete failure to apply reason,” and concluded that the defect goes to the root of the arrest process and justifies bail.
The Meghalaya Police filed a chargesheet of over 700 pages alleging that the murder was a pre-planned conspiracy hatched by Sonam along with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and others. The trial has begun, and witnesses are currently being questioned.
