Supreme Court Refuses to Send Sonam Raghuvanshi Back to Jail for Now, Questions Bail Order

The Supreme Court has declined, for now, to cancel the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. The court, however, made it clear that it had serious reservations about the reasoning used by the Meghalaya High Court while granting her bail.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu admitted the Meghalaya government's appeal against the June 29 High Court order. The bench issued notice to Sonam but refused to immediately stay the bail order after being told that she had already been released from jail and was in Shillong.

"Prima facie, we would have stayed the order of bail, but since she has already been released, we would not want to intervene," the bench observed. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 9, when the court is expected to consider Sonam's response and possible directions for speeding up the trial.
Supreme Court questions bail reasoning but cites presumption of innocence

The Supreme Court indicated that it was not satisfied with the way the High Court had approached the bail issue. At the same time, it said courts must be careful before sending an accused person back to prison after release, especially when the trial is still underway.

"We are conscious that howsoever grave the alleged offence is, there is a presumption of innocence," the bench said. It also noted that allegations in the case, however serious, would ultimately have to be tested during trial through evidence and witness examination.

The court's approach reflects a narrow but important legal question. It was not deciding whether Sonam was guilty or innocent. Instead, it was examining whether the High Court was right in granting bail on the ground that the police had failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest.

The Meghalaya government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the High Court had placed excessive weight on what the state described as a typographical error in the arrest papers. Mehta said the case involved a "shocking" and "premeditated" murder and that there was prima facie material against Sonam.
What the Meghalaya government argued in court

Mehta told the bench that the arrest-related documents mistakenly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103, which deals with murder. He argued that this error did not prejudice the accused because Sonam was otherwise aware of the reasons for her arrest.

"There was just one typographical error that Section 103 became 403 under the BNS," Mehta submitted. He also said Sonam's bail had earlier been rejected on three occasions, with courts recording prima facie material pointing to her alleged role in the crime.

The state argued that procedural lapses can justify relief only when they cause real prejudice to an accused. It relied on recent Supreme Court reasoning to say that bail should not be granted merely because of a clerical mistake, especially in a serious offence such as murder.

According to the prosecution, Sonam travelled to Meghalaya with three accomplices as part of a planned conspiracy. Mehta alleged that she participated in the assault on Raja, after which his body was thrown in a forested area. He said she later absconded and was traced in Uttar Pradesh.

Sonam's counsel disputed the state's position and argued that the defect was not limited to a wrong statutory section. The defence said she had not been meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest, a requirement that protects personal liberty and allows an accused to seek effective legal remedy.
The honeymoon murder case and the High Court order

The case relates to the death of 29-year-old Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who travelled to Meghalaya with Sonam after their wedding in May 2025. The couple went missing after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23.

Raja's body was later recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls in the Sohra area. Sonam was traced days later in Uttar Pradesh. The Meghalaya Police have alleged that Raja's killing was part of a pre-planned conspiracy involving Sonam, her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and others.

The police have filed a chargesheet of more than 700 pages. The trial has already commenced, and witnesses are being examined. This was one reason the Supreme Court said it may consider directions to ensure the proceedings move quickly, instead of immediately sending Sonam back to custody.

The Meghalaya High Court had upheld an order of the additional deputy commissioner judicial, Shillong, granting bail to Sonam. Justice W Diengdoh held that the arrest documents repeatedly cited Section 403 instead of Section 103 and also carried irrelevant allegations.

The High Court noted that the documents included claims that Sonam was suspected of being a deserter from the armed forces and of committing offences outside India. It described the material as showing "total non-application of mind" and concluded that the defect went to the root of the arrest process.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that if bail was granted only because the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated, the authorities could theoretically arrest the accused again after complying with the legal requirement. That observation appeared to question whether bail was the correct remedy in the circumstances.

For now, Sonam remains out on bail while the Supreme Court examines the state's challenge. The next hearing will determine whether the court interferes with the High Court order, modifies bail conditions, or focuses on expediting the trial in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case.