The Supreme Court on Friday (July 3, 2026) refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who was arrested in connection with the May 23 murder of her newlywed husband, Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in the hill State. While the court acknowledged that the allegations against Ms. Raghuvanshi were “quite serious”, it declined to send her back to judicial custody after being informed that she had already been released.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu was hearing an appeal filed by the Meghalaya government against a June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court, which had upheld a Shillong trial court’s decision granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest.
“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, while posting the matter for further hearing on July 9.
While indicating that it had “reservations” about the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Bench said it was equally conscious of the implications of directing an accused back to custody after release on bail. Reiterating the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, the judges observed, “We are conscious that, howsoever grave the alleged offence is, there is a presumption of innocence.”
Also Read : When families leave women no good choices
The Bench added that it would consider issuing appropriate directions for expediting the trial after Ms. Raghuvanshi files her response to the State’s appeal.
‘Typographical error’
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the case as a “shocking” instance of “premeditated” murder and argued that the High Court had erred in granting bail on the basis of what he described as a mere “typographical error” in the arrest memo. He further pointed out that Ms. Raghuvanshi’s applications for bail had previously been rejected on three occasions, with the courts recording the existence of prima facie material indicating her involvement in the alleged offence.
“It is a predetermined murder. There are three accomplices travelling with the wife. She takes her husband to a secluded hilly area, where he is killed. She also participated in the assault... She later absconded and was arrested in Uttar Pradesh,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
Mr. Mehta contended that the High Court had granted bail solely because the arrest memo mistakenly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with the offence of murder.
“There was just one typographical error. Section 103 became 403 under the BNS,” he submitted, adding that the procedural lapse had caused no real prejudice to the accused, who was fully aware of the nature and gravity of the allegations against her.
‘Reservations about High Court order’
The Bench indicated that it was not entirely persuaded by the reasoning adopted by the High Court. “Prima facie, we have our reservations on how the High Court dealt with the matter,” Justice Sundresh observed.
The judges also noted that Ms. Raghuvanshi had not raised the alleged procedural defect during the three earlier occasions on which her applications for bail had been rejected.
Appearing for Ms. Raghuvanshi, her counsel disputed the State’s submissions, contending that the defect was not confined to an incorrect reference to the statutory provision. He argued that she had never been meaningfully informed of the grounds of her arrest, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards available to an arrested person.
However, the Bench retorted that if the grant of bail rested solely on a procedural defect in communicating the grounds of arrest, there was nothing in law to prevent the investigating agency from carrying out a fresh arrest after curing the defect and complying with the statutory requirements.
As Mr. Mehta continued to press for a stay of the bail order, reiterating that the allegations were “shocking”, the Bench remarked that such considerations are to be tested during the course of the trial and not at this stage.
“These are facts and matters to be decided during the trial. We are also conscious that there are certain parameters that need to be fulfilled at the time of the grant of bail. But after she has been released, we may not want to intervene”, Justice Sundresh said.
Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the discrepancy was merely an innocuous clerical or typographical error, the High Court had held that the document purportedly communicating the grounds of arrest had been prepared “without any application of mind” and contained allegations that bore no connection to the case.
“If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency”, Justice W. Diengdoh had observed. He had held that such glaring errors struck at the very foundation of the arrest process and justified the grant of bail.
The judge, however, clarified that the findings were confined to the legality of the arrest procedure and did not cast any aspersions on the investigation or the trial.
The case relates to the murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon in May 2025. The couple went missing on May 23 while vacationing in the Sohra region of the State. Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2.
According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband as part of a conspiracy allegedly hatched with her purported lover, Raj Kushwaha, with the objective of securing financial gain.
Published - July 03, 2026 11:57 am IST
