India
oi-Madhuri Adnal
The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, and directed her to surrender before the authorities within two weeks.
The apex court set aside the Meghalaya High Court’s June 29 order that had granted her bail, saying her remaining out on bail could affect the ongoing trial. At the same time, it gave her the liberty to apply for fresh bail if the trial is not completed within six months.
The Supreme Court cancelled the Meghalaya High Court’s bail order for Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, ordering her surrender within two weeks and allowing a fresh bail application if the trial exceeds six months.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale observed that allowing Raghuvanshi to remain free at this stage could hinder the proceedings in the case.
The Meghalaya government informed the court that the chargesheet had already been filed and that the matter is currently awaiting the framing of charges.
The Supreme Court clarified that if the trial does not progress or conclude within six months, Raghuvanshi can file a fresh bail application. The bench also stated that neither its present order nor the previous orders rejecting her bail would influence the trial court’s decision on any future plea.
Sonam Raghuvanshi was arrested on June 9, 2025, in connection with the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon trip to Meghalaya. She was granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court on June 29 this year, following which the state government approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision.
The High Court had granted her bail after pointing to procedural lapses in her arrest. It noted that the arrest memo mistakenly mentioned Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with punishment for murder. It had also observed that the police had failed to properly communicate the grounds of her arrest.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the incorrect section mentioned in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error and should not have been treated as a ground for granting bail in a murder case. He submitted that the grounds of arrest were provided to Raghuvanshi at the time of her arrest and that the magistrate in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, had recorded this fact while granting transit remand to Meghalaya.
Mehta further told the court that the allegations against Raghuvanshi are serious and that procedural errors, if any, should not outweigh the gravity of the offence.
Senior advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad, appearing for Raghuvanshi, argued that the High Court had imposed strict conditions while granting bail, including directing her to remain in Shillong and cooperate with the investigation and trial. He also said the trial is likely to take time as the prosecution has more than 50 witnesses.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that non-supply of the grounds of arrest is a curable defect and can be remedied. It also drew a distinction between not supplying the grounds of arrest at all and providing insufficient reasons for arrest.
The bench noted that objections regarding the arrest procedure should ordinarily be raised at the earliest opportunity. It pointed out that Raghuvanshi had not raised the issue of non-supply of the grounds of arrest in any of her three earlier bail applications, all of which had been rejected.
With its latest order, the Supreme Court has asked Sonam Raghuvanshi to surrender within two weeks while keeping the door open for her to seek bail again if the trial does not conclude within the stipulated period.
