The Supreme Court suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi surrender and face trial in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case. It also questioned why she delayed raising the plea alleging non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the earliest stage.
The Supreme Court suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the main accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, surrender and face trial. The Court also questioned why she had failed to challenge the alleged non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the earliest stage of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court indicated that it may refer to a larger Bench the question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo is by itself enough to render an arrest invalid and justify the grant of bail signalling, in the process, that if that ground does not hold, the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi could be undone, raising the prospect of her return to custody.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing the State of Meghalaya’s challenge to the bail extended to Sonam, the prime accused in what has come to be known as the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case.
The Bench declined to pass any interim order staying the bail, meaning she remains at liberty for now, but made clear that the sustainability of the very ground on which she was released would be examined closely.
The dispute turns on a single defect in Sonam’s arrest documentation. The arrest memo cited Section 403 a provision that does not correspond to the offence instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which prescribes the punishment for murder.
The Meghalaya High Court had treated this as fatal to the arrest, but the State contends it was no more than a typographical slip that ought not to have unravelled the prosecution.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court had attached disproportionate weight to what was, in substance, a clerical mistake. He submitted that written grounds of arrest had in fact been furnished to the accused, and that the only discrepancy lay in the erroneous mention of Section 403 in place of Section 103(1).
Pressing the gravity of the allegations, he described the case as a serious one involving a premeditated killing during the couple’s honeymoon, and urged that the seriousness of the offence should not be eclipsed by a technical drafting error.
The Bench indicated that the legal question could not be resolved without first settling whether the ground on which bail rested was tenable.
The Court said,
“There are two options. Either we will consider and pass order on merit. Or we will pass an order for you to surrender in the interregnum till the witnesses are examined, then we will see it on merit. We don’t want to surprise you. The second option may be better for you. Take instructions and come back,”
The judge added,
“I think the second option is better for you. If you want to argue further, we will hear you and then decide one way or the other.”
The Court also noted that conflicting judicial opinions exist on the requirement of supplying written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, and that these divergent lines of authority might themselves warrant consideration by a larger Bench. Recording that it would consider the matter at length, the Bench observed that it would decide whether a reference was required.
To enable that examination, the Court directed the Meghalaya Police to place on record clear and legible copies of the original documents supplied to Sonam at the time of her arrest, so that it could verify precisely what was communicated to her. The hearing was deferred to allow the arrest memo and connected material to be produced.
The State’s appeal is directed against a Meghalaya High Court order of June 29, 2026, by which a single judge, Justice W. Diengdoh, dismissed the government’s petition seeking cancellation of bail and upheld the trial court’s decision to release Sonam. The trial court had granted her bail on April 27, 2026.
In upholding that order, the High Court had been sharply critical of the manner in which the grounds of arrest were drawn up, holding that their preparation reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind.”
It observed that the document contained no specific allegation or information indicating the actual charges against the accused, and treated that procedural lapse as going to the root of the arrest.
Before the matter reached the present Bench, the State had first moved the Supreme Court on July 1, 2026. On July 3, a separate Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu declined to stay the High Court’s order, noting that Sonam had already been released and was in Shillong in terms of the trial court’s conditions.
That Bench indicated that, prima facie, this was not a case where the grounds of arrest had gone entirely unsupplied, but held that with the accused already at liberty, the issue was best left to be worked out in the course of the proceedings, and granted the State liberty to file its documents.
Background of the case
The prosecution’s case concerns the death of Raja Raghuvanshi, a businessman from Indore, who travelled to Meghalaya with Sonam for their honeymoon shortly after their marriage on May 11, 2025.
The couple went missing from the Sohra area on May 23, 2025, triggering a multi-State search. Raja’s body was recovered from a gorge on June 2, 2025.
ALSO READ: Raja Raghuvanshi’s Family Apologises to Meghalaya Govt, Slams Sonam for Defaming State
According to the police, Sonam allegedly conspired with her alleged associate and hired assailants to have her husband killed, a charge she denies. She surrendered at a police station in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, on June 9, 2025, around the time investigators apprehended the other accused.
The investigating agency filed its charge sheet on September 5, 2025, and charges were framed against her on October 28, 2025 under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the BNS. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and the prosecution has since begun leading evidence.
In a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court, Sonam has maintained that she was falsely implicated and that the case against her rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.