SC Refuses To Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi’s Bail In Raja Raghuvanshi Honeymoon Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that although it had prima facie reservations about the Meghalaya High Court’s reasoning, it was not inclined to send her back to judicial custody after she had already been released.

The case reached the top court after the Meghalaya government challenged the High Court’s June 29 order upholding bail granted by a Shillong trial court on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of Ms. Raghuvanshi’s arrest. According to The Hindu, while the Supreme Court questioned aspects of the High Court’s reasoning, it also reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and indicated it would consider expediting the trial.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu was hearing the State’s appeal when it observed that the allegations against Ms. Raghuvanshi were “quite serious”, but declined to interfere with the bail order because she had already been released.

“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, while posting the matter for further hearing on July 9.

The judges said they had “reservations” about the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the matter but also noted the implications of directing an accused back into custody after release on bail. Reiterating a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Bench observed, “We are conscious that, howsoever grave the alleged offence is, there is a presumption of innocence.”

The court further said it would consider issuing appropriate directions to expedite the trial after Ms. Raghuvanshi files her response to the State’s appeal.

According to The Hindu, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that the High Court had erred in granting bail on the basis of what he described as a mere “typographical error” in the arrest memo. He also submitted that Ms. Raghuvanshi’s bail applications had earlier been rejected on three occasions, with the courts recording the existence of prima facie material indicating her involvement in the alleged offence.

“It is a predetermined murder. There are three accomplices travelling with the wife. She takes her husband to a secluded hilly area, where he is killed. She also participated in the assault... She later absconded and was arrested in Uttar Pradesh,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

He contended that the arrest memo had mistakenly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with the offence of murder.

“There was just one typographical error. Section 103 became 403 under the BNS,” he submitted, adding that the procedural lapse had caused no real prejudice because the accused was fully aware of the nature and gravity of the allegations against her.

Justice Sundresh indicated that the Bench was not entirely persuaded by the High Court’s reasoning.

“Prima facie, we have our reservations on how the High Court dealt with the matter,” Justice Sundresh observed.

The Bench also noted that Ms. Raghuvanshi had not relied on the alleged procedural defect during the three earlier occasions on which her bail pleas had been rejected.

Appearing for Ms. Raghuvanshi, her counsel disputed the State’s submissions, arguing that the issue extended beyond an incorrect statutory provision. He contended that she had never been meaningfully informed of the grounds of her arrest, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards available to an arrested person.

The Bench, however, observed that if the grant of bail rested solely on a procedural defect in communicating the grounds of arrest, there was nothing in law preventing the investigating agency from carrying out a fresh arrest after curing the defect and complying with the statutory requirements.

As Mr. Mehta continued to press for a stay of the bail order, reiterating that the allegations were “shocking”, the Bench remarked that such considerations are to be tested during the course of the trial rather than at this stage.

“These are facts and matters to be decided during the trial. We are also conscious that there are certain parameters that need to be fulfilled at the time of the grant of bail. But after she has been released, we may not want to intervene”, Justice Sundresh said.

The Hindu reported that the Meghalaya High Court had rejected the prosecution’s argument that the discrepancy in the arrest memo was merely an innocuous clerical or typographical error. Justice W. Diengdoh held that the document purportedly communicating the grounds of arrest had been prepared “without any application of mind” and contained allegations unrelated to the case.

“If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency”, Justice W. Diengdoh had observed.

The judge held that such glaring errors struck at the foundation of the arrest process and justified the grant of bail. However, he clarified that the findings were confined to the legality of the arrest procedure and did not cast any aspersions on the investigation or the trial.

The case concerns the murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon in May 2025. The couple went missing on May 23 while holidaying in the Sohra region of the State, and Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2.

According to The Hindu, the prosecution alleges that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband as part of a conspiracy allegedly hatched with her purported lover, Raj Kushwaha, with the objective of securing financial gain.

(With inputs from The Hindu)