The Supreme Court has refused to stay the Meghalaya High Court's decision to grant bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused of her husband's murder during their honeymoon, despite strong objections from the state.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court refused to stay the Meghalaya high court's bail order for Sonam Raghuvanshi.
- Sonam Raghuvanshi is accused of murdering her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Meghalaya government, argued against the bail due to serious allegations.
- The apex court noted Raghuvanshi's release from jail and compliance with trial court bail conditions.
- The matter is posted for further hearing upon the reopening of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Meghalaya high court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her husband during their honeymoon in 2025.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu expressed reservations over the high court order but refused to stay it, noting that Raghuvanshi has been released from jail and is in Shillong pursuant to bail conditions imposed by the trial court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, said the allegations against Raghuvanshi were serious in nature and she cannot be released on technical grounds.
Mehta said the case is "really shocking" and sought a stay of the high court order granting bail as it was given citing non-supply of full grounds of arrest. Mehta sought stay of the high court order but the bench refused to grant the relief.
"This is the case where both of them went on honeymoon in Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. There were three of her accomplices. She killed the husband on a hill and threw the dead body into a gorge. The three assailants and the lady herself were part of the physical assault. She absconded and was later arrested from a place in Uttar Pradesh," Mehta said.
If the high court order is not stayed, she may abscond, he said and referred to the order of the magistrate, who issued the order for transit remand in Uttar Pradesh and had recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest were supplied to her.
Mehta submitted that multiple bail applications of Raghuvanshi have been rejected and the ground of non-supply of documents was not taken in any of those.
He said it was a typographical error to refer to section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of section 103(1) (punishment for murder) and the high court upheld the grant of bail on this ground.
When the bench asked about the stage of the trial, Mehta said the trial is going on, adding that of the 94 witnesses, four have been examined.
The bench told the counsel, appearing for Raghuvanshi, "Prima facie, we have some reservation with the high court's judgment. The way the high court has dealt with the issue, we have a reservation with that."
Justice Sundresh pointed out that the grounds of arrest were explained to Raghuvanshi and it was recorded in the magistrate's order, and this ground was not raised in the previous bail applications.
"After that, somehow, wisdom dawned on you and you raised this ground. Is the court right in granting bail on the technical ground that a wrong provision was quoted, especially when bail was rejected on merits earlier?" Justice Sundresh asked.
The lawyer, however, claimed that the grounds of arrest were never communicated to Raghuvanshi at any point.
He submitted that the magistrate's order was for transit remand, when she was not represented by her counsel and only a memo was given to her.
Justice Sundresh asked if that is the case, could this ground be raised belatedly.
"If bail is granted only on this reason, the State is not barred under the law from arresting her again," the bench said.
The accused's counsel then submitted that she has been put to strict bail conditions by the trial court and has to remain in Shillong itself, and hence, there is no likelihood of her absconding.
The bench then noted that the accused has already been released and expressed its reluctance to stay the bail order.
"If she is released, then we cannot stay the order," it said, adding that the court was under the impression that she was still under custody.
The solicitor general then attempted to persuade the bench by highlighting the gravity of the crime. He said instances of wives killing husbands are increasing and referred to the recent Lohagad case, where a woman allegedly killed her fiance. Justice Sundresh said an element of introspection is needed from all stakeholders and referred to another case from Bengaluru.
State Challenges Bail Decision
The bench posted the matter for further hearing upon reopening of the apex court.
On Thursday, the Meghalaya government moved the Supreme Court against the bail granted to the prime accused in the case.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the murder of her businessman husband Raja Raghuvanshi.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya's Sohra area on May 23 last year.
Subsequently, Raja's body was found in a deep gorge on June 2 in 2025.
The police have alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gains.
On June 29, the Meghalaya high court had upheld a trial court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi.
