The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred the hearing on the Meghalaya government's plea challenging the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred the hearing on the Meghalaya government's plea challenging the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case, till July 14 and directed the state authorities to place on record the arrest memo and other documents supplied to the accused at the time of her arrest.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar did not pass any interim order staying the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, meaning that the relief granted to her will continue for the time being.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, contended that the High Court had erroneously upheld the grant of bail by treating a typographical error in the arrest documents as a fatal procedural defect.
Calling it a "very serious case", SG Mehta submitted that the written grounds of arrest had in fact been supplied to the accused and that the only discrepancy was that Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was mentioned instead of Section 103(1), which relates to the offence of murder.
"The written grounds are also supplied. The only thing is there is a typographical error," the Solicitor General submitted, adding that there had never been any dispute that the grounds of arrest were furnished to the accused.
However, the Justice Misra-led Bench observed that the issue was not merely the communication of statutory provisions but whether the accused had been informed about the general background of the case.
When SG Mehta sought permission to file a typed compilation of the documents, the apex court directed the Meghalaya government to produce photocopies of the original arrest memo and other documents furnished to Sonam Raghuvanshi at the time of her arrest.
"We have to see if this ground is sustainable or not," the Justice Misra-led Bench observed while posting the matter for further hearing on July 14.
Meanwhile, Sonam Raghuvanshi, in her counter-affidavit filed before the top court, claimed innocence and alleged that she had been falsely implicated in the case.
She contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and that she cannot be presumed guilty merely on the basis of allegations.
In her affidavit, Sonam further submitted that no recovery remains to be effected from her, the chargesheet has already been filed, and she has been complying with the bail conditions by residing in Shillong as directed by the trial court.
She also argued that there is no possibility of her tampering with evidence.
Earlier, the Meghalaya government had moved the Supreme Court challenging the June 29 judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which upheld a Shillong trial court's order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi.
On July 3, the apex court had issued notice on the state government's plea but declined to stay the operation of the High Court's order, observing that the accused had already been released on bail.
At the same time, it had expressed prima facie reservations about the Meghalaya High Court's reasoning and sought a response from Sonam Raghuvanshi.
The High Court had refused to interfere with the April 2026 order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, granting bail after holding that serious procedural lapses had occurred during the arrest process.
The trial court had found that all arrest-related documents, including the arrest memo and other records, incorrectly referred to Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), and held that the accused had not been properly informed that she had been arrested for the offence of murder.
Rejecting the prosecution's argument that the error was merely typographical, it concluded that the defect had prejudiced the accused's defence.
The case relates to the murder of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon shortly after their marriage in May 2025.
According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with her alleged lover and hired assailants to eliminate Raja during the honeymoon. Following completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and the trial is presently underway.