The Supreme Court on Friday (3 July) declined to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the main accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. While the Court said it had prima facie reservations about the High Court's reasoning, it refused to send her back to custody because she had already been released.
The matter came before a Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu on an appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya against the Meghalaya High Court's order upholding the grant of bail.
According to the State, Raja Raghuvanshi died during a honeymoon trip to Meghalaya in May 2025. The prosecution has alleged that the incident was part of a planned conspiracy. Sonam Raghuvanshi has denied the allegations, and the criminal trial is currently pending.
The State argued that the High Court had upheld bail primarily because arrest documents mistakenly mentioned Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103, the provision dealing with murder.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the alleged procedural error was only a typographical mistake and did not affect the accused's understanding of the case. He also pointed out that earlier bail applications had been rejected and that the issue regarding communication of arrest grounds had not been raised at those stages.
The Bench indicated that it was not fully convinced by the High Court's reasoning.
Justice Sundresh observed,
"Prima facie, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the High Court handled this matter."
The Court further noted that there is an important distinction between a complete failure to communicate the grounds of arrest and an incorrect citation of a statutory provision where the factual allegations had otherwise been disclosed.
When counsel for Sonam Raghuvanshi argued that the grounds of arrest had never been meaningfully communicated, the Bench said that this issue would require a detailed examination after receiving her response.
Although the Bench initially considered staying the High Court's order, it changed course after learning that Sonam Raghuvanshi had already been released from custody.
The Court observed,
"If she has already been released, then we cannot pass an interim order to summarily send her back to custody."
The judges also reiterated that criminal law proceeds on the principle that every accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations. The Court made it clear that questions relating to the prosecution's case would ultimately be examined during the trial.
The Supreme Court issued notice to Sonam Raghuvanshi and directed her to file a counter-affidavit within four days. The State has been permitted to place additional documents and relevant portions of the chargesheet on record.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 9, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 11944 of 2026
Judge: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu
Decision Date: July 3, 2026
, E20 Petrol-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
