Surrender in 3 weeks: SC cancels honeymoon murder accused Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the honeymoon murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi in Meghalaya, directing her to surrender within three weeks.

In Short

• Sonam accused of conspiring to kill husband during honeymoon in Meghalaya
• Supreme Court cancels her bail granted on technical grounds
• Directs Sonam to surrender within three weeks or face consequences

In a major setback to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, the Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled her bail and directed her to surrender before the trial court within three weeks.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale allowed the Meghalaya government's appeal challenging the bail granted to Sonam, observing that her remaining free at this stage of the trial was likely to hinder the judicial process. The court, however, observed that if the trial does not progress expeditiously, she would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application after six months.

The 25-year-old woman from Indore had travelled to Meghalaya with her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, for their honeymoon in May last year. The couple went missing during the trip and Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge a week later. A subsequent probe found that Sonam, along with her lover, had conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband. She was arrested in June 2025.

Sonam was originally granted bail by a Shillong trial court in April, which was subsequently upheld by the Meghalaya High Court in late June. However, the Supreme Court rejected her bail on Thursday, saying she was not entitled to bail.

"On fact, we find that the respondent is not entitled to bail. It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is a difference between non-service and giving adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second one has to see the prejudice," the bench said.

The woman was granted bail on technical grounds after the trial court held that the mandatory requirement for furnishing the grounds of arrest had not been complied with. Upholding the order, the Meghalaya High Court observed that the police had failed to provide proper written grounds of arrest and said the arrest memo reflected a "total non-application of judicious mind" as it cited the wrong provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for murder.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that the defect in the arrest memo was merely a clerical or typographical error and could not invalidate the arrest. He also contended that Sonam posed a flight risk if she were allowed to remain on bail.

While the Supreme Court reasserted that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, it noted that since the trial has already begun in the case, her "continued enlargement" on bail at this stage might hinder the ongoing proceedings. Accordingly, the bench cancelled the bail order and directed Sonam Raghuvanshi to surrender within three weeks.

At an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had indicated that it might refer to a larger bench the legal question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo could invalidate an arrest and justify the grant of bail. The court had also questioned whether the High Court was justified in treating the error as sufficient ground to uphold Sonam's release.

During the previous hearing, the bench had given Sonam's counsel two options, either she could voluntarily surrender or the court would proceed to decide the Meghalaya government's plea seeking cancellation of her bail.

In her response before the Supreme Court, Sonam maintained that she had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. She argued that she could not be presumed guilty solely on the basis of allegations.

- Ends