The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale held that the Meghalaya High Court and the trial court had erred in enlarging her on bail primarily on the ground of alleged defects in the communication of the grounds of her arrest.
Allowing an appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya, the top court directed Sonam to surrender within three weeks. The court added that if the trial is not concluded within six months, she would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.
Sonam was granted bail over wrong communication about the grounds of arrest, which referred to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1) dealing with murder. Relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case, Sonam had argued that she had not been properly informed of the grounds of arrest, entitling her to bail. The trial court accepted this contention, and the High Court upheld the order.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that there is a clear distinction between non-service of the grounds of arrest and inadequate particulars in the grounds that were supplied. “It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is 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 Bench held. It noted that Sonam had acknowledged receipt of the grounds of arrest and relevant documents before the Magistrate, who recorded her satisfaction regarding compliance. “The respondent expressed her satisfaction on the reasons behind her arrest. Documents were indeed served on her. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the issue of the validity of the arrest. Suffice it to state that both courts have committed an error by granting bail on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court,” the judges observed.
The Court clarified that even if an arrest is found defective for non-compliance with the requirement of serving grounds of arrest, the investigating agency is not barred from effecting a fresh arrest for the purposes of investigation. On the question of bail, the Bench emphasised that earlier orders rejecting Sonam’s bail on merits had already attained finality. “We are also conscious of the fact that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. However, we are dealing with a case where the earlier bail orders rejecting enlargement on merit have attained finality. The trial has already begun. We are inclined to observe that continued enlargement at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial,” the Court said while cancelling her bail.
The court said, “On facts we find that respondent is not entitled to bail. It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is 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 Bench noted that Sonam was arrested on June 9, 2025, after allegedly remaining untraceable following her husband’s death. According to the prosecution, the couple had travelled to Meghalaya after their marriage in May 2025. Raja, an Indore-based businessman, was allegedly murdered and his body thrown into a gorge near Wei Sawdong Falls with the help of three accomplices allegedly hired by Sonam. Police have claimed that she conspired with her alleged lover Raj Singh Kushwaha and other hired men, and that the killing took place after three earlier failed attempts. Raja’s body was recovered on June 2, 2025, from a deep gorge in the Sohra (Cherrapunji) area of East Khasi Hills district. Sonam was later traced and arrested.
