The Supreme Court on Thursday canceled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon trip in Meghalaya in 2025, and ordered her to surrender within two weeks.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and BP Varali set aside the June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court granting her bail, but allowed her to apply for fresh bail before the trial court if the trial failed to conclude within six months.
“We are inclined to observe that the continuous amplification of the defendant (Raghuvanshi) will hamper the ongoing trial,” the bench said.
The state had informed the court that the indictment had been submitted in February and that the charging stage had not yet taken place.
“In the event that the trial does not proceed and concludes within six months, the defendant shall be free to file a fresh application for bail, wherein neither our present order nor the previous orders denying bail will be impeded,” Raghuvanshi ordered to surrender within two weeks.
Raghuvanshi, who was arrested on June 9 last year, was granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court on June 29. The Meghalaya government has appealed this decision in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found fault with the state police for not informing the reasons for the arrest and showing complete “non-application of common sense”, as the arrest warrant mentioned Section 403 instead of Section 103 (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The State submitted to the Supreme Court that this was merely a typographical error on the basis of which the Supreme Court released an accused accused of committing a serious crime.
The state, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said it was a typographical error and that reasons for arrest were given to the accused at the time of her arrest on June 9, 2025. He said this fact was also noted by the judge in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, from where she was produced and taken to remand to Meghalaya. Mehta further said that the allegations were serious and that this was the case in which she surrendered in Uttar Pradesh.
Senior advocate Ardindomoli Prasad, who appeared for Raghuvanshi, said the Supreme Court order required her to remain in Shillong and cooperate with the trial. He disputed the state’s claim that it had surrendered and said the trial would take time because there were more than 50 witnesses.
The court had asked Prasad last time whether his client was ready to surrender. Hearing arguments on the matter, the court said that failure to provide reasons for arrest is a “curable” defect that can be remedied by re-arresting the accused. Furthermore, the court said that there is a difference between failing to provide reasons for arrest and failing to provide sufficient grounds for arrest. The bench also agreed with the State’s view that such an objection should have been raised in the first place. However, Raghuvanshi did not raise this ground in any of the three previous bail applications that were rejected.
Earlier, on July 3, while issuing notice on the state’s appeal, the court had refused to stay the high court’s order, stating that the woman had already been released.
