SC says Meghalaya honeymoon murder accused Sonam Raghuvanshi will remain on bail as she's already out
The Supreme Court said that allegations against Sonam Raghuvanshi were "quite serious" and agreed to examine the Meghalaya Police's challenge to the bail order in detail on Thursday. However, after being informed that Sonam had already been released, the bench said it did not wish to interfere at this stage.
Meghalaya honeymoon murder accused Sonam Raghuvanshi will remain out on bail for now after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the bail granted to her by the High Court, even as it issued notice on the Meghalaya Police's plea seeking cancellation of her bail.
Sonam, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the murder of her businessman husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. Police have alleged that she conspired with hired assailants to kill him for financial gains.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya’s Sohra area on May 23 last year. Raja’s body was later found in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.
The top court said the allegations against Sonam were "quite serious" and agreed to examine the Meghalaya Police's challenge to the bail order in detail on Thursday. However, after being informed that Sonam had already been released, the bench said it did not wish to interfere at this stage.
"If she is released already, we would not want to interfere," the bench observed. Earlier during the hearing, the court had indicated that it was inclined to stay the bail order before learning that Sonam had already been released.
Appearing for the Meghalaya Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Sonam's earlier bail applications had been rejected and argued that the case did not involve a failure to communicate the grounds of arrest. According to him, the issue related only to a clerical error in one section.
Counsel appearing for Sonam sought time to respond to the police's plea.
During the hearing, Sonam's lawyer argued that she had not even been provided legal representation when she was arrested and produced for transit remand. The counsel contended that she had not been informed of the grounds of her arrest and had only been served with a blank proforma.
The bench, however, questioned why the issue had not been raised earlier.
"The question comes that when you didn't raise this issue earlier, can you be allowed to raise it at this stage?" the court asked.
The court also asked whether, even if bail had been granted on such a technical ground, the law would prevent the authorities from arresting her again.
"If the trial court grants bail only on this technical ground, would the law debar them from arresting you again?" the bench observed.
The court noted that Sonam had remained incarcerated for a considerable period.
"We are conscious that she has been incarcerated for quite a long time. The rule of bail is the rule and jail is the exception... The issue is that we will have to consider the matter," the bench said.
On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a trial court order granting bail to Sonam.
The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by the state government, which had sought cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on April 27. The court said the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”.
Police have alleged that the killing was carried out as part of a conspiracy involving hired assailants and that the motive was financial gain.
With the High Court refusing to cancel the bail granted earlier by the trial court, Sonam remains at the centre of the case linked to Raja Raghuvanshi’s death after the couple went missing in Meghalaya last year.
Opposing cancellation of bail, Sonam's counsel argued that no recovery remained to be made and that strict conditions had already been imposed. The lawyer told the court that Sonam was already in Shillong and could not travel, adding that there was no possibility of her tampering with evidence.
"There is no recovery to be made. Already, strict conditions have been imposed. I'm already in Shillong. She cannot tamper with evidence," the counsel submitted.
Responding, the bench said it was attempting to strike a balance while allowing the trial to continue.
"We are trying to balance the issue. Let the trial continue," the court observed.
At one stage during the hearing, the Solicitor General remarked, "Recently a wife killed the husband because he was wearing a wig."
The bench declined to comment, saying, "We don't want to say anything because it will become controversial."
The Supreme Court will now hear the Meghalaya Police's plea seeking cancellation of Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail in detail on Thursday.
Meghalaya honeymoon murder accused Sonam Raghuvanshi will remain out on bail for now after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the bail granted to her by the High Court, even as it issued notice on the Meghalaya Police's plea seeking cancellation of her bail.
Sonam, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the murder of her businessman husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. Police have alleged that she conspired with hired assailants to kill him for financial gains.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya’s Sohra area on May 23 last year. Raja’s body was later found in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.
The top court said the allegations against Sonam were "quite serious" and agreed to examine the Meghalaya Police's challenge to the bail order in detail on Thursday. However, after being informed that Sonam had already been released, the bench said it did not wish to interfere at this stage.
"If she is released already, we would not want to interfere," the bench observed. Earlier during the hearing, the court had indicated that it was inclined to stay the bail order before learning that Sonam had already been released.
Appearing for the Meghalaya Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Sonam's earlier bail applications had been rejected and argued that the case did not involve a failure to communicate the grounds of arrest. According to him, the issue related only to a clerical error in one section.
Counsel appearing for Sonam sought time to respond to the police's plea.
During the hearing, Sonam's lawyer argued that she had not even been provided legal representation when she was arrested and produced for transit remand. The counsel contended that she had not been informed of the grounds of her arrest and had only been served with a blank proforma.
The bench, however, questioned why the issue had not been raised earlier.
"The question comes that when you didn't raise this issue earlier, can you be allowed to raise it at this stage?" the court asked.
The court also asked whether, even if bail had been granted on such a technical ground, the law would prevent the authorities from arresting her again.
"If the trial court grants bail only on this technical ground, would the law debar them from arresting you again?" the bench observed.
The court noted that Sonam had remained incarcerated for a considerable period.
"We are conscious that she has been incarcerated for quite a long time. The rule of bail is the rule and jail is the exception... The issue is that we will have to consider the matter," the bench said.
On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a trial court order granting bail to Sonam.
The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by the state government, which had sought cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on April 27. The court said the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”.
Police have alleged that the killing was carried out as part of a conspiracy involving hired assailants and that the motive was financial gain.
With the High Court refusing to cancel the bail granted earlier by the trial court, Sonam remains at the centre of the case linked to Raja Raghuvanshi’s death after the couple went missing in Meghalaya last year.
Opposing cancellation of bail, Sonam's counsel argued that no recovery remained to be made and that strict conditions had already been imposed. The lawyer told the court that Sonam was already in Shillong and could not travel, adding that there was no possibility of her tampering with evidence.
"There is no recovery to be made. Already, strict conditions have been imposed. I'm already in Shillong. She cannot tamper with evidence," the counsel submitted.
Responding, the bench said it was attempting to strike a balance while allowing the trial to continue.
"We are trying to balance the issue. Let the trial continue," the court observed.
At one stage during the hearing, the Solicitor General remarked, "Recently a wife killed the husband because he was wearing a wig."
The bench declined to comment, saying, "We don't want to say anything because it will become controversial."
The Supreme Court will now hear the Meghalaya Police's plea seeking cancellation of Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail in detail on Thursday.
