Supreme Court Suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi Surrender, Says Trial Should Progress Before Fresh Bail Consideration

July 21, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, consider surrendering and face trial until key prosecution witnesses are examined. The Court indicated that if she chose not to surrender, it could proceed to decide the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the grant of bail on its merits.

A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government’s challenge to the High Court judgment that upheld the trial court’s order granting bail to Sonam.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned Sonam’s conduct after the alleged offence and asked why the issue of non-communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest stage before the Magistrate or in her previous bail applications. The judges also expressed doubts over whether an error in the arrest memo alone was sufficient to justify the grant of bail.

The Court observed that it was considering two possible options. It could either hear the appeal on merits and pass an appropriate order or direct Sonam to surrender. The Bench indicated that surrender would be the preferable course, as it would enable the trial court to expedite the examination of important prosecution witnesses before reconsidering her request for bail. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on Thursday to allow Sonam’s counsel to obtain instructions.

The Supreme Court also questioned the significance of the arrest memo mentioning Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision that does not exist, instead of Section 103, which deals with murder. The Bench observed that what mattered was whether the accused had been informed about the substance of the allegations rather than whether the correct statutory provision had been cited in the arrest documents.

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the legality of the bail order, not its cancellation based on subsequent events.

According to the prosecution, Sonam allegedly conspired with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and three hired assailants to murder her husband during their honeymoon by taking him to an isolated location in East Khasi Hills, where he was allegedly killed and his body thrown into a gorge.

The State contended that Sonam surfaced only after the co-accused had been arrested and never questioned the grounds of arrest before the Magistrate or during her earlier bail proceedings. It submitted that the plea regarding non-supply of the grounds of arrest was raised only during the third bail application after legal advice and therefore lacked credibility.

The Solicitor General further argued that the reference to Section 403 instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error that did not invalidate the arrest or violate Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu Limaye, he submitted that the constitutional requirement is to communicate the substance of the allegations against the accused, not necessarily the precise statutory provision.

The State also informed the Court that Sonam had signed the arrest documents, her family had been informed of her arrest, written grounds of arrest had been supplied, and that only four of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

Counsel appearing for Sonam opposed the appeal, arguing that the prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and had been influenced by extensive media coverage. It was also submitted that Sonam had been arrested rather than voluntarily surrendering.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that it was not examining the merits of the prosecution evidence at this stage and was restricting itself to the issues arising from the grant of bail and the alleged procedural defects in the arrest process.

The Meghalaya government has challenged the High Court’s decision, which held that repeated references to the non-existent Section 403(1) of the BNS in several arrest-related documents reflected non-application of mind and affected the legality of the arrest. The High Court had ruled that the error could not simply be dismissed as a typographical mistake.

Earlier, while issuing notice on the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the bail order because Sonam had already been released. However, it had expressed prima facie reservations about the High Court’s reasoning and indicated that it may refer to a larger Bench the constitutional question of whether written grounds of arrest must be mandatorily supplied to an accused at the time of arrest in view of conflicting judicial precedents.

The case stems from the alleged murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who married Sonam in May 2025 before travelling to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. The couple went missing on May 23 after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat. Their rented scooter was later found abandoned near Sohrarim, while Raja’s body was recovered on June 2 from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills. Sonam, who remained missing until June 8, was later located near a roadside eatery on the Varanasi-Ghazipur highway.

The investigating agency alleges that Sonam, along with Raj Kushwaha, hatched a pre-planned conspiracy to eliminate Raja with the help of hired killers. A charge sheet running over 700 pages has been filed, and the trial is currently in progress.