Honeymoon murder case: SC refuses to stay Meghalaya HC order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi
Total Views |
On July 3, Friday, the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi by the Meghalaya High Court, in the case involving the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon last year. On June 29, the high court had backed a Shillong trial court's April decision to grant Sonam bail, which led the Meghalaya government to approach the Supreme Court.
Background on the case:
After roughly ten months in Shillong's district jail, a trial court released her on bail on April 27, ruling that investigators hadn't properly informed her of the grounds for her arrest. The court flagged that key documents- the arrest memo, justification checklist, inspection memo, and case diary extract, all cited the wrong legal provision, listing Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita rather than Section 103(1), the actual murder provision. Because this mistake showed up consistently across documents, the court found it couldn't be dismissed as a simple clerical slip, since none of the paperwork actually told her that murder was the charge against her. It also noted that the specific facts underlying the accusation were never conveyed to her at the time of her arrest.
The state government appealed this ruling, arguing it was a harmless typo that didn't disadvantage the accused in any way. But the high court rejected that appeal, questioning how such an error could repeat itself across so many official records. Justice W Diengdoh, hearing the matter alone, remarked that sections of the arrest paperwork looked like they'd been lifted from generic templates, even including an unrelated line describing Sonam as a military deserter. The judge concluded that this pattern showed the documents were prepared carelessly, without any real engagement with the specifics of the case, and that nothing in them clarified what she was actually being accused of. Justice Diengdoh added that if this was how authorities were communicating grounds for arrest, it pointed to a broader failure of careful judgment on the part of the arresting agency.
Following that setback, the Meghalaya government took the matter to the Supreme Court. The case is set to resume on July 9.
While the bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu voiced some concerns about the high court's reasoning, they chose not to block the order, pointing out that Sonam had already walked free from custody. The judges said they wanted to watch how the trial unfolds before intervening further, and a notice was sent to Sonam as part of the proceedings.
Representing the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew a comparison to the Pune fort murder case, in which Ketan Agarwal was allegedly killed by his fiancée Siya Goyal along with her partner Chetan Chaudhary. Mehta argued that given the gravity of the charges against Sonam, she shouldn't be let off on procedural technicalities.
STORY | Honeymoon murder case: SC refuses to stay Meghalaya HC order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 3, 2026
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Meghalaya High Court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her husband during their honeymoon in 2025.… pic.twitter.com/t6Y1oNnVQV
Background on the case:
Sonam, from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was taken into custody last June over her husband's killing. The couple had married on May 11 and traveled to Sohra in Meghalaya for their honeymoon on May 20. Three days later, they both vanished, and Raja's body, he was 29, turned up on June 2. Police arrested 25-year-old Sonam in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, on June 9, and her alleged lover, Raj Singh Kushwaha, was arrested subsequently.
After roughly ten months in Shillong's district jail, a trial court released her on bail on April 27, ruling that investigators hadn't properly informed her of the grounds for her arrest. The court flagged that key documents- the arrest memo, justification checklist, inspection memo, and case diary extract, all cited the wrong legal provision, listing Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita rather than Section 103(1), the actual murder provision. Because this mistake showed up consistently across documents, the court found it couldn't be dismissed as a simple clerical slip, since none of the paperwork actually told her that murder was the charge against her. It also noted that the specific facts underlying the accusation were never conveyed to her at the time of her arrest.
The state government appealed this ruling, arguing it was a harmless typo that didn't disadvantage the accused in any way. But the high court rejected that appeal, questioning how such an error could repeat itself across so many official records. Justice W Diengdoh, hearing the matter alone, remarked that sections of the arrest paperwork looked like they'd been lifted from generic templates, even including an unrelated line describing Sonam as a military deserter. The judge concluded that this pattern showed the documents were prepared carelessly, without any real engagement with the specifics of the case, and that nothing in them clarified what she was actually being accused of. Justice Diengdoh added that if this was how authorities were communicating grounds for arrest, it pointed to a broader failure of careful judgment on the part of the arresting agency.
Following that setback, the Meghalaya government took the matter to the Supreme Court. The case is set to resume on July 9.