Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail In Honeymoon Murder Case

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail In Honeymoon Murder Case

The Supreme Court declined on Friday, July 3, to cancel the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. While the bench expressed serious reservations regarding the legal reasoning used to grant the bail, the court decided not to send Raghuvanshi back to prison because she had already been released and was currently in Shillong.

A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu admitted an appeal from the Meghalaya government challenging a June 29 order from the Meghalaya High Court. The High Court had previously upheld a trial court order granting bail to Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

The Dispute Over "Typographical Errors"

The central legal conflict involves whether a clerical mistake in arrest documents justifies the release of an accused in a murder case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state of Meghalaya, argued that the High Court placed excessive weight on a typographical error. He informed the court that arrest papers mistakenly cited Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which pertains to the punishment for murder.

Mehta contended that since there is no Section 403 in the BNS, the error was a simple slip that did not prejudice the accused, as Raghuvanshi was aware of the reasons for her arrest. He further noted that a magistrate who issued a transit warrant in Uttar Pradesh had recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest were supplied. The state argued that bail should not be granted based on a clerical mistake in a case involving a shocking and premeditated murder.

However, the Meghalaya High Court and Justice W Diengdoh had previously found that the error was not a mere slip. The High Court noted that the arrest documents repeatedly cited the wrong section and contained irrelevant allegations, such as claims that Raghuvanshi was a deserter from the armed forces or had committed offences outside India. The High Court described this as a total non-application of mind, stating that the defect went to the root of the arrest process.

Allegations of a Pre-planned Conspiracy

The case stems from the death of Raja Raghuvanshi, a 29-year-old businessman. The couple married on May 12, 2025, and traveled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. They disappeared after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23, 2025. Their rented scooter was later found abandoned near Sohrarim.

On June 2, 2025, Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in the Sohra area of the East Khasi Hills. Sonam Raghuvanshi remained missing until June 8, when she was traced near a dhaba on the Varanasi-Ghazipur main road in Uttar Pradesh.

According to the prosecution and a chargesheet exceeding 700 pages, Raghuvanshi conspired with three accomplices, including her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha, to kill her husband. The state alleges she participated in the physical assault before the body was thrown into the gorge.

Court's Reluctance to Intervene

Despite the gravity of the crime, the Supreme Court cited the presumption of innocence.

"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 that it would be too harsh to return an accused to custody after their release while a trial is ongoing. Justice Sundresh questioned whether it was right to grant bail on a technical ground after it had been rejected on merits three times previously, but noted that the evidence must ultimately be tested during trial through witness examination.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta highlighted a perceived increase in wives killing husbands, referencing the Siya-Ketan case in Pune and a case in Lohagad. He argued that Raghuvanshi posed a risk of absconding, while the defense countered that she is subject to strict conditions requiring her to remain in Shillong.

The court noted that if bail was granted solely because grounds of arrest were not properly communicated, the state might theoretically be allowed to arrest the accused again after complying with legal requirements.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 9. The court is expected to consider Raghuvanshi's response and may issue directions to expedite the trial, which currently involves 94 witnesses.