New Delhi, July 21, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, consider surrendering and facing trial while the court examines the State government's challenge to the bail granted to her. The Bench also questioned why Sonam had not raised the issue of the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest at the earliest stage.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government's appeal against the High Court order granting bail to Sonam. During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it was inclined either to decide the matter on merits or direct Sonam to surrender temporarily until key prosecution witnesses are examined, Live Law and Bar & Bench reported.
Court Signals Bail Doubts
Addressing Sonam's counsel, Justice Sundresh questioned both her conduct after the alleged crime and the timing of her legal challenge.
"Your conduct itself, how do you explain? The case of the prosecution is that you along with the deceased went to that place. That is the foundational fact. So, we will not go into the other issues. Number two, regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time?" the judge asked.
The Bench also questioned the High Court's reliance on a clerical error in the arrest memo while granting bail.
"How does the reasoning given by the High Court that Section 403 is Section 103, how does it matter at this stage of the case?" Justice Sundresh remarked.
The Court informed Sonam's counsel that there were two possible courses of action. It could either hear the matter on merits and pass an order or ask Sonam to surrender during the pendency of the proceedings.
"We don't want to catch you by surprise... The second option is better for you. Get instructions and come back," Justice Sundresh said.
The Bench further observed that if Sonam agreed to surrender, it could direct the trial court to record the evidence of public witnesses on priority and thereafter reconsider her bail plea.
When Sonam's counsel pointed out that the trial court had already imposed strict bail conditions requiring her to remain in Shillong and attend proceedings every day, the Court said those factors would also be considered before passing any order.
State Defends Arrest Process
Appearing for the State of Meghalaya, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the challenge before the Supreme Court concerned the grant of bail, not its cancellation on procedural grounds.
Mehta submitted that Sonam had allegedly conspired with her alleged lover and three hired assailants to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. According to the prosecution, Raja was taken to an isolated location in the hills, where he was allegedly murdered before his body was thrown into a gorge.
The Solicitor General argued that Sonam surfaced only after the police arrested the co-suspects and had never disputed this fact in any of her earlier pleadings. He also informed the Court that Raja's body was recovered after around 10 days with the help of drones and was identified through tattoos and other body marks because his face was unrecognisable.
Mehta contended that mentioning Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error and could not amount to non-supply of grounds of arrest.
Referring to Article 22(1) of the Constitution and relying on the Madhu Limaye case, he argued that the purpose of communicating grounds of arrest is to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure that a person knows the allegations against them.
He further pointed out that Sonam had not objected to the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest before the Magistrate or in her earlier bail applications. According to him, the issue was raised only in the third bail application after legal advice.
The Court, however, clarified that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution's allegations in detail at this stage.
The Bench also noted that only four of the 94 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
Bail Order Under Scrutiny
The Meghalaya High Court had upheld the trial court's decision granting bail to Sonam after observing that the arrest documents repeatedly referred to a non-existent Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1). According to the High Court, the repeated error reflected non-application of mind and weakened the validity of the arrest process.
The High Court had observed that even if the incorrect provision was a typographical mistake, its repeated appearance in several important documents could not simply be ignored.
Earlier, on July 3, the Supreme Court had declined to stay Sonam's bail because she had already been released. However, it had expressed prima facie reservations about the High Court's reasoning and agreed to examine the Meghalaya government's challenge.
The Supreme Court had also earlier indicated that it may consider referring to a larger Bench the broader legal question of whether grounds of arrest must always be supplied in writing at the time of arrest because of conflicting judicial decisions. During those proceedings, the Court had observed that merely mentioning legal provisions is not enough and that the essence of the allegations against an arrested person must also be communicated.
Background Of The Case
The case relates to the alleged murder of Raja Raghuvanshi during his honeymoon in Meghalaya.
Raja and Sonam, who got married on May 12, 2025, went missing on May 23 while visiting Meghalaya. They were last seen checking out of a homestay in Nongriat. A few days later, their rented scooter was found abandoned near Sohrarim.
On June 2, Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills, around 10 days after the couple disappeared.
Sonam remained missing until June 8, when she was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi-Ghazipur road. Meghalaya Police later named her and Raj Kushwaha as the prime suspects in the case, alleging that the murder had been planned in advance. Police have since filed a chargesheet running over 700 pages.
Also Watch:
The trial is currently underway. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on Thursday, July 23, when Sonam's counsel is expected to inform the Supreme Court whether she is willing to surrender as suggested by the Bench.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
