Supreme Court gave Sonam Raghuvanshi two options while hearing Meghalaya government's plea challenging the bail granted to her in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave two options to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case, while hearing the Meghalaya government's appeal challenging the bail granted to her by the Meghalaya trial court and upheld by the Meghalaya High Court.

The Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale orally observed that Sonam could either contest the State's appeal on merits or surrender and remain in custody while the Court examines the legality of the bail order.

"You have two options. Either we will pass an order on merits or we will ask you to surrender, let the public witnesses question you. Meanwhile, we will decide the matter on merits," the Bench told Sonam's counsel.

Seeking time to obtain instructions, Sonam's counsel informed the Court that he would respond on Thursday.

During the hearing, the Bench also questioned Sonam's conduct following the incident and asked why she had not raised, at the earliest opportunity, the plea that the grounds of her arrest had not been communicated to her.

Opposing the grant of bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that Sonam had voluntarily surrendered before the police and therefore could not later challenge her arrest on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not furnished.

Mehta submitted that any discrepancy in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error and not sufficient to invalidate the arrest.

He further contended that Sonam never disputed before the Magistrate that she had surrendered, nor did she claim in her earlier bail applications that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated. According to him, this plea surfaced only at a later stage of the proceedings.

"If the arrested accused is caught red-handed, there is no requirement to separately communicate the grounds of arrest. Similarly, when a person voluntarily surrenders, they cannot later contend that the grounds of arrest were not furnished. If the accused herself comes to the police, there is no question of surprising her with an arrest," Mehta argued.

The matter will now be taken up on Thursday, i.e. July 23 after Sonam's counsel obtains instructions on the options indicated by the Court.

Previous Hearings

Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband had told the Supreme Court that she has been falsely implicated in the case which is based on circumstantial evidence. In her response to the challenge made by State of Meghalaya against the High Court order that upheld bail granted to Sonam, court has been told that the prosecution has to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt during the course of the trial thus, mere allegations on her does not prove the offence particularly in the case of circumstantial evidence.

Earlier, the Supreme Court said that it will be taking up the case challenging bail granted to Sonam on Tuesday July 14, 2026. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar has directed that written submission be filed by then so the matter is heard at length. Noting that the case before it is a serious one, the bench said, "We will consider this matter at length and see if the matter is to be referred to a larger bench..".

Previously, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had vehemently argued before Supreme Court against the order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year. SG Tushar Mehta told a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu that Sonam had absconded to Uttar Pradesh from Shillong, Meghalaya. This is really shocking, SG Mehta argued today before the bench.

"I will show four pages. this is a case where the couple goes to Meghalaya, it is a pre-determined murder, wife takes husband to some hilly areas and kills..there are three accomplices...assaulted, he was killed and dead body was thrown in the hills..", he had added.

While refusing to stay the order granting bail to Sonam, Court had on July 3, issued notice in the plea moved by State of Meghalaya against the said High Court order that upheld bail granted to her. The court sought Sonam's response to the State's challenge and listed the matter on July 9, 2026 for further hearing.

Background of the Case

The SLP before Supreme Court challenges the judgment dated June 29, 2026, by which the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong dismissed the State's plea and refused to interfere with a trial court order that had freed the accused on a technical ground.

According to the petition, the trial court granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi essentially because one of seven documents prepared at the time of her arrest carried a typographical error, citing "Section 403 BNS" instead of "Section 103 BNS," the provision under which she is charged with murder. The State contends that six other contemporaneous documents, all bearing her own signature, correctly recorded the grounds of her arrest, and that she never raised the issue in her first three bail applications.

The case relates to the killing of Raja Raghuvanshi, whose body was recovered from a gorge near Sohra on June 2, 2025, ten days after he went missing during his honeymoon with Sonam. Investigators allege the murder was carefully planned before the couple even left Indore, in conspiracy with Sonam's associate Raj Kushwaha and three other men who trekked alongside the couple before the killing near Wei Sawdong, where he was allegedly attacked with machetes and his body thrown into a deep gorge.

Sonam was arrested in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, on June 9, 2025, after allegedly staging a plan to resurface with a false kidnapping story. The petition states that at the time of arrest, she signed five separate documents, including the memorandum of arrest and an intimation of rights, all indicating she had been informed of the reasons for her arrest. A magistrate in Sohra who examined her days later also recorded that she had confirmed her awareness of the grounds.

The State's plea notes that Sonam filed four bail applications in under a year, the first three rejected after courts found a prima facie case, a flight risk, and a likelihood of her influencing witnesses. It was only in the fourth application, filed in April, that non-communication of arrest grounds was raised for the first time. The trial court accepted this and granted bail on April 27 without examining whether any actual prejudice had been caused, prompting the State's unsuccessful petition before the High Court.

The petition further cites forensic findings, including a CFSL report said to place Sonam at the same locations as the deceased and other accused through CCTV footage and seized material, corroborating the movement of co-accused Vishal Singh Chauhan, Aakash Singh Rajput and Anand Kurmi along the same route. Raja's brother, Vipin Raghuvanshi, had filed the missing person's complaint that led to registration of the FIR. The chargesheet, filed in September 2025 against five accused, was supplemented in February to add arms-related charges against a sixth person.

Case Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi@ Bitti@ Bittu

Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale

Hearing Date: July 21, 2026

Tags: