SC weighs merits of Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail, hearing to continue Thursday
The Supreme Court questioned Sonam Raghuvanshi's conduct in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case and suggested she surrender to face trial. Hearing the state's plea against her bail, the court said it may decide the matter on merits or order her surrender
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the conduct of Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of killing her husband during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in 2025, while suggesting her to surrender and face trial in the case.
The accused, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the killing of her businessman husband Raja Raghuvanshi. The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya’s Sohra area on May 23 last year. Subsequently, Raja’s body was found in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.
The police has alleged that Sonam conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gains. A bench of justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale was hearing a plea filed by the Meghalaya government challenging the bail granted to Sonam. “How do you explain your conduct? Their (police) case is that you along with deceased went to that place. The occurrence took place where he was attacked and died. What did you do thereafter? That’s the primary issue. Secondly, regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time? the bench observed.
The top court said it will either consider and pass an order on merits or direct Sonam to surrender and face trial. “We are putting it to you because we don’t want to catch you by surprise and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us,” Justice Sundresh told the lawyer appearing for Sonam.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, submitted that the couple went to Meghalaya for honeymoon immediately after their marriage.
“She lured her husband to be taken to an isolated place in the hills. Three persons hired through her paramour were also following her. Eventually husband was killed, wife participated in it, and body was thrown down the gorge. He didn’t die because of the throwing.
“He was killed first and then was thrown. That’s what the investigation suggests. Respondent ran away. It was found that those three persons who helped her were at a particular place and hence were arrested. Now it has come on record that the paramour instructed her that now it is safer for her to surrender. At that time she was in Gazipur, she then surrendered before the police,” Mehta said.
The law officer said Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest. The counsel appearing for Sonam said this matter has been given hype by the media and it is a case of circumstantial evidence.
The top court, however, made it clear that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution’s allegations in detail at this stage. The matter will now be heard on Thursday.
While hearing the matter on July 9, the apex court said it might refer to a larger bench the legal question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail to the accused in the case.
The top court had also indicated that it would closely examine whether the high court was justified in granting bail to Sonam on the grounds that the arrest memo contained a typographical error.
On July 3, another bench of the top court had refused to stay the high court order granting bail. The solicitor general on July 9 raised the question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail in the “shocking” murder case.
The high court had upheld Sonam’s bail on the grounds that the police failed to supply proper written grounds of arrest, noting a “total non-application of judicious mind” because the memo cited Section 403 (which does not exist in the context) instead of Section 103(1) (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The solicitor general had argued that the error was purely clerical.
On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a trial court order granting bail to the accused. The high court had dismissed a petition filed by the state seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on April 27. It had held that the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”.
