The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 23, 2026) set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, and directed her to surrender within three weeks.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale was hearing an appeal filed by the Meghalaya government against the June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court, which had affirmed 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.
Rejecting the defence’s contention that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to the accused, the Bench held that her continued liberty at this stage could “hinder” the ongoing trial. It, however, granted Ms. Raghuvanshi liberty to seek fresh bail before the trial court if the trial is not concluded within six months.
“The trial has already begun. We are inclined to observe that the continued enlargement of the respondent at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial. In such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order,” the Bench observed.
The State government informed the court that the chargesheet had already been filed and that the trial was yet to reach the stage of framing of charges.
Clarifying that its order would not foreclose Ms. Raghuvanshi’s right to seek bail at a later stage, the Bench said, “In the event of the trial not proceeding and concluding within six months, the respondent shall be at liberty to move a fresh application for bail, in which neither our present order nor the earlier orders rejecting bail shall come in the way.”
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the constitutional requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing had been substantially complied with. According to him, the only defect was an inadvertent typographical error in the arrest memo, which referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, the provision relating to murder.
Finding merit in the State government’s contention, the Bench drew a distinction between non-service of the grounds of arrest and the furnishing of grounds that lacked adequate particulars. It held that the procedural lapse pointed out by the defence had not caused any prejudice to the rights of Ms. Raghuvanshi.
“It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is a difference between non-service and giving adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second, one has to see the prejudice,” the court observed.
The apex court also questioned why the objection regarding the alleged non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest opportunity, particularly when Ms. Raghuvanshi’s three earlier bail applications had been rejected by the trial court on the ground that she posed a flight risk and was likely to tamper with evidence in light of her past conduct.
“As recorded earlier, the respondent had expressed her satisfaction with the reasons for her arrest... Such a plea [of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest] has to be raised at the earliest point of time,” the Bench observed.
Arrested on June 9 last year, Ms. Raghuvanshi was granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court on June 29. Aggrieved by the decision, the Meghalaya government challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
Granting her bail, the High Court had rejected the prosecution’s contention that the discrepancy in the arrest memo was merely an innocuous clerical or typographical error. It 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.
Before the top court, senior advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad, appearing for Ms. Raghuvanshi, disputed the State government’s contention that she had surrendered and submitted that the trial was likely to take considerable time, with the prosecution proposing to examine over 50 witnesses. He further argued that the document furnished to the accused was merely a pro forma and fell short of the constitutional requirement of meaningfully communicating the grounds of arrest.
Earlier, the apex court asked Mr. Prasad whether his client was willing to surrender. It also observed that even if the grounds of arrest had not been properly furnished, such a defect was “curable” and could be remedied by re-arresting the accused.
“Either we will consider and pass an order on merits, or we will pass an order making you surrender. We are putting it to you because we don’t want to catch you by surprise, and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us,” Justice Sundresh had orally remarked.
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.
Published - July 23, 2026 12:50 pm IST