The Supreme Court sought Sonam Raghuvanshi’s response to Meghalaya’s plea seeking cancellation of her bail in the alleged honeymoon murder case. The State challenged bail orders passed by the trial court and High Court, with the matter now listed for hearing on July 9.
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the Indore woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, on a petition filed by the State of Meghalaya seeking cancellation of the bail granted to her.
A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice to Sonam Raghuvanshi after hearing the State’s challenge to the orders of the trial court and the Meghalaya High Court, both of which had granted her bail. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 9.
The case has drawn nationwide attention due to the sensational allegations that Sonam allegedly plotted the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during what was supposed to be the couple’s honeymoon in Meghalaya.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the grant of bail, describing the allegations as extremely grave.
The SG submitted,
“Both of them go to Meghalaya for honeymoon. It’s a pre determined murder. Wife takes husband to some hilly area.. participates in assault ..he was killed and then dead body was thrown into the gorge. Three assailants brought by the lady and she herself killed him. She was arrested from UP after she absconded. Magistrate says he was satisfied that grounds of arrest was communicated,”
The State argued that both the trial court and the High Court failed to consider crucial material while granting bail and wrongly concluded that Sonam had not been informed about the grounds of her arrest.
During the hearing, the Bench initially expressed reservations about the Meghalaya High Court’s decision and indicated that it was inclined to stay the bail order.
Justice Sundresh observed that the Court had prima facie concerns regarding the reasoning adopted by the High Court, particularly since earlier bail applications filed by Sonam had been rejected and the issue regarding communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised at that stage.
Justice Sundresh initially remarked,
“See we have our primary facie reservations about the High Court order. We will stay this order and see how the trial progresses. You have been examined about grounds of arrest. In earlier bail pleas you have not raised these issues. This is not a case where grounds of detention is not served. These facts remain,”
However, after being informed that Sonam had already been released from custody pursuant to the High Court’s order, the Bench decided not to pass any interim order directing her re-arrest.
The Bench remarked orally,
“If she is released already then we cannot order her arrest again. We thought she was not released,”
The Court thereafter issued notice to Sonam and granted her time to file her reply before the next hearing.
Recording the submissions made by the State, the Court observed:
“Solicitor Submits that courts have not considered relevant material. Apart from serious allegations made and earlier rejection of bail applications, it is submitted that it is not a case of not informing grounds of arrest. Respondent seeks time to file reply. Order granting bail has been given effect to and this we are inclined to hear this on next Thursday,”
ALSO READ: Raja Raghuvanshi’s Family Apologises to Meghalaya Govt, Slams Sonam for Defaming State
As the hearing concluded, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that crimes involving intimate partners were becoming increasingly frequent.
He said,
“These incidents are rising. One woman also killed her partner because he was wearing a wig,”
The criminal case relates to the murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam for their honeymoon in May 2025.
According to investigators, Sonam allegedly conspired with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and three other accused persons to eliminate her husband. The prosecution claims that Raja was taken to a remote hilly location in the East Khasi Hills district, where he was assaulted and murdered before his body was thrown into a gorge.
The police allege that the crime was meticulously planned in advance and that Sonam actively participated in its execution. Following the incident, Sonam allegedly absconded and was later arrested from Uttar Pradesh in June 2025. A chargesheet has since been filed, and the criminal trial is currently underway.
The controversy surrounding the grant of bail centres on the manner in which Sonam was arrested. In its order dated April 27, the trial court held that the investigating agency had committed procedural lapses while effecting her arrest. The court found that the arrest memo repeatedly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with the offence of murder.
Observing that Sonam had not been properly informed of the offence for which she was being arrested, the trial court recorded:
“In none of the documents has the petitioner been intimated that she is arrested for the offence u/s 103(1) BNS,”
Treating this as a violation of the legal requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest, the trial court granted her bail.
The Meghalaya High Court subsequently upheld the trial court’s order after examining the documents supplied to Sonam at the time of her arrest. The High Court found that the “intimation of grounds of arrest” was merely a standard-format checklist containing several unrelated and irrelevant grounds without explaining the factual allegations against the accused.
It also noted that the documents contained references to matters completely unrelated to the case, including suspicion of desertion from the armed forces, offences committed outside India and failure of released convicts to report changes in residence. Although the repeated mention of Section 403 instead of Section 103 could individually be described as a typographical error, the High Court held that its recurrence across multiple documents reflected a lack of due application of mind by the investigating agency.
Aggrieved by the grant of bail, the Meghalaya government approached the Supreme Court contending that the High Court had adopted an overly technical approach while ignoring the factual record. The State argued that Sonam had, in fact, been informed of the grounds of her arrest through five contemporaneous documents, all bearing her signatures.
The plea further relied upon the transit remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur, which recorded that Sonam had been informed of the grounds of her arrest. It also referred to the subsequent remand proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sohra, where, according to the State, Sonam herself acknowledged before the court that she knew why she had been arrested.
The State further pointed out that Sonam had filed three earlier bail applications without ever alleging that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to her. Even in the fourth bail application, on which bail was eventually granted, no prejudice arising from the alleged typographical error had been pleaded. According to the State, all of her earlier bail applications correctly referred to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, indicating that she was fully aware of the offence for which she had been arrested.
Appearing for Sonam, her counsel maintained that the mandatory legal requirement of informing an accused about the grounds of arrest had not been complied with. It was submitted on behalf of the accused that she was arrested before the transit order was passed and no grounds were communicated at all.
The defence also argued that the Supreme Court should be slow in interfering with an order granting bail, reiterating the settled legal principle that liberty is the norm.
Responding to these submissions, the Bench observed:
“Suppose you are given protection today.. will law debar the arrest tomorrow. Let us see how trial proceeds. However heinous the crime is, bail is the rule jail is an exception. So that we will consider,”
When the accused’s counsel pointed out that any stay would effectively result in cancellation of bail, Justice Sundresh clarified:
“Not cancel, it is just for putting the bail on hold,”
Solicitor General Mehta, however, countered the argument by reminding the Court that Sonam had allegedly fled after the incident.
“But you did flee to UP,” the SG said.
Ultimately, after noting that Sonam had already been released from custody, the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim order directing her return to jail. The Court said,
“We thought she was not released. When she is released, we cannot pass an order to seek her return back to jail,”
The matter will now be heard on July 9, when the Supreme Court will consider Sonam Raghuvanshi’s response to the Meghalaya government’s plea seeking cancellation of her bail.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE