Guwahati: Today The Supreme Court declined to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025. However, the apex court observed that it had prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the Meghalaya High Court while upholding the bail order.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition filed by the Meghalaya Government challenging the 29th June order of the Meghalaya High Court. The High Court had upheld a Shillong trial court's decision to grant bail to Sonam on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest, citing an error in the arrest memo.
Although the Bench remarked that the allegations against the accused were "quite serious" and questioned whether bail should have been granted solely because of a typographical error, it refused to suspend the bail order, noting that Sonam had already been released from judicial custody.
Appearing for the Meghalaya Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the case as a "shocking" instance of a premeditated murder. He argued that the grounds of arrest had, in fact, been communicated to the accused and that the High Court had erred in granting bail based on what he termed a clerical mistake.
As per the State, the arrest memo mistakenly mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which deals with the offence of murder. Mehta submitted that there is no Section 403 under the BNS and contended that the error was purely typographical and caused no prejudice to the accused.
He further informed the court that the trial is already underway, with 94 witnesses expected to testify, and argued that Sonam posed a risk of absconding.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh observed that the alleged defect in communicating the grounds of arrest had not been raised in Sonam's earlier bail applications. The Bench also questioned whether a clerical error alone could justify granting bail after it had previously been denied on merits.
Counsel for Sonam, however, maintained that the grounds of arrest had never been properly communicated. He argued that she was complying with strict bail conditions, was required to remain in Shillong, and was unlikely to abscond. He also submitted that, as the trial had already commenced, there was no justification for keeping her in custody.
While issuing notice on the Meghalaya Government's petition and agreeing to examine the legal issues raised, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not stay the bail order at this stage. Justice Sundresh observed that had the accused remained in custody, the court would have been inclined to suspend the High Court's order. The matter will now be heard in due course as the State's challenge to the bail order proceeds.