Meghalaya honeymoon murder case: SC sets aside Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail, gives her three weeks to surrender

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 23, 2026) canceled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband Raja Raghuvanshi on their honeymoon in Meghalaya, and directed her to surrender within three weeks.

A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was hearing an appeal filed by the Meghalaya government against the June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court, which had granted bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi on the grounds that the Shillong court had not effectively conveyed the reasons for her arrest.

Rejecting the defense’s claim that the defendant was not provided with reasons for arrest, the Board decided that the defendant’s continued freedom at this stage could “obstruct” the ongoing trial. However, it gave Ms. Raghuvanshi the liberty to seek fresh bail before the trial court if the hearing was not concluded within six months.

“The trial has already started. We are inclined to observe that expansion of the defendant at this stage may hinder the ongoing litigation. In such cases, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order,” the bench said.

The state government informed the court that the charges have already been submitted and the hearing is yet to reach the stage of framing the charges.

Explaining that its decision would not preclude Ms Raghuvanshi’s right to seek bail at a later stage, the Bench said: “In case the case does not continue and is not concluded within six months, the defendant will be at liberty to apply for a fresh bail, in which case neither our current decision nor previous decisions denying bail will be an obstacle to this.”

‘We did not cause prejudice’

Speaking on behalf of the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta maintained that the constitutional requirement of giving reasons for arrest in writing has been largely complied with. The only flaw, according to him, was an unintentional clerical error in the arrest note, which referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, the provision for murder.

Finding the state government’s claim justified, the Bench made a distinction between failure to communicate the grounds for arrest and submission of grounds without sufficient details. It held that the procedural error pointed out by the defense did not prejudice Ms Raghuvanshi’s rights.

The court said, “It is not as if the reason for detention was not communicated to the defendant. There is a difference between not serving here and providing sufficient justification. While the first category can mitigate the detention, bias must be seen in the second category.”

The high court also questioned why the objection regarding the alleged failure to provide grounds for arrest was not raised at the earliest opportunity, especially when Ms Raghuvanshi’s previous three bail applications were rejected by the trial court on the grounds that she posed a flight risk and was likely to tamper with evidence in light of her past behaviour.

“As previously recorded, the defendant expressed his satisfaction with the reasons for his arrest… Such a defense [of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest] “It needs to be brought up at the earliest,” the Bench said.

Ms. Raghuvanshi, who was arrested on June 9 last year, was granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court on June 29. Aggrieved by the decision, the Meghalaya government challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

Granting his bail, the High Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the discrepancy in the arrest note was merely a harmless spelling or clerical error. He stated that the document allegedly stating the reasons for the arrest was prepared “without any thought” and contained allegations that had no connection with the case.

Before the high court, senior advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad, appearing for Ms. Raghuvanshi, challenged the State government’s claim that she had surrendered and submitted that the hearing was likely to take considerable time, with the prosecution proposing to interrogate more than 50 witnesses. He also argued that the document presented to the defendant was pro forma only and did not meet the constitutional requirement that the grounds for arrest be conveyed in a meaningful manner.

Earlier, the top court asked Mr Prasad whether his client was willing to surrender. The Court further observed that even if the grounds for arrest were not properly stated, such defect was “curable” and could be remedied by re-arresting the accused.

“We will either issue an order on the merits or an order requiring you to surrender. We are offering this to you because we do not want to catch you off guard and at the same time you need to understand our thinking. Just take the instructions and come back to us,” Judge Sundresh had verbally stated.

The case pertains to the murder of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had gone to Meghalaya for honeymoon with his wife Sonam in May 2025. The couple went missing while on holiday in the Sohra region of the province on May 23. Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep valley on 2 June.

It was published – 23 July 2026 12:50 IST