Sonam Raghuvanshi Before Supreme Court: 'Falsely Implicated In My Husband's Murder; Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence'

Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year has 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.

The reply filed by AOR Abhay Singh tells Supreme Court that Sonam is not delaying trial and is fully cooperating with the same and any delay in trial, is not attributable to her.

Relying on the chargesheet, Sonam states that as many as 90 witnesses are listed, out of which, till date, only 4 witnesses have been examined and 86 witnesses are yet to be examined. "From 28.10.2025 till date i.e. over the period of the more than 7 months, only 4 witnesses have been examined. From the manner in which trial is progressing, examination of remaining 86 witnesses will take considerable time," the reply adds.

Sonam has further told the bench that she is she is presently residing in Shillong and has not at any point of time moved outside the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Earlier today, 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..".

On the last hearing 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. SG Mehta had further told the bench that as per the supplementary chargesheet, Sonam as Plan B was carrying a gun also in case her plan to throw her husband into the valley failed. The law officer also raised concerns over three bail applications of Sonam being rejected previously by the same judge who has now granted her bail.

While refusing to stay the order granting bail to Sonam, Court had last week 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.

The Special Leave Petition 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 vs. SMTI. SONAM RAGUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU