Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Sonam Raghuvanshi's Bail in Honeymoon Murder Case
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the bail granted by the Meghalaya High Court to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused of murdering her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in 2023. The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu noted that Sonam had already been released from jail and opted to monitor the trial's progress instead of intervening at this stage.
The Meghalaya government had challenged the high court's June 29 order, which upheld a Shillong trial court's decision to grant bail on April 27. The trial court had cited significant procedural lapses in the arrest process, stating that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to the accused.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state, argued that the allegations against Sonam were serious. He cited the Pune fort murder case—where a man was allegedly killed by his fiancée and her lover—to underscore the gravity of the charges. However, the Supreme Court expressed reservations but refused to stay the bail, issuing a notice to Sonam and scheduling the next hearing for July 9.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, 25, and her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, 29, both from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, were married on May 11, 2023. They went on a honeymoon to Sohra in Meghalaya on May 20. Three days later, they went missing, and Raja's body was found on June 2. Sonam was arrested on June 9 from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. Her lover, Raj Singh Kushwaha, was also arrested later.
After spending nearly 10 months in judicial custody, the trial court granted her bail on April 27. The court observed that the investigating agency had repeatedly cited the wrong legal provision—Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1), which pertains to murder—in all arrest-related documents, including the arrest memo and case diary extract. The court held that this error could not be dismissed as a mere clerical mistake, as it meant Sonam was never properly informed that she was being arrested for murder. The court also noted that the specific facts of the alleged offence were not communicated to her at the time of arrest.
The Meghalaya government challenged this order in the high court, arguing that the error was typographical and caused no prejudice. However, the high court dismissed the appeal on June 29. Justice W Diengdoh pointed out that the same error appeared consistently across multiple official documents, and portions of the arrest records seemed copied from standard templates, including an irrelevant reference describing the accused as a deserter from the armed forces. The bench observed that the preparation was done without any application of mind and that the actual charges against her were not specified.
The Supreme Court's decision to let Sonam remain free while requiring her to cooperate with the trial reflects a cautious approach. The case continues to draw attention due to the procedural irregularities highlighted by the lower courts.
