Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, has submitted before the Supreme Court that the allegations against her are false. In her response to a challenge made by the State of Meghalaya against the Meghalaya High Court order granting her bail, Sonam said that mere allegations do not make her guilty and that the prosecution needs to prove the charges against her beyond a reasonable doubt.
As reported by Law Beat, the reply filed by Sonam stated that she has been cooperating in the trial of the case and that it is wrong to attribute the delay in the trial to her. Advocate on Record Abhay Singh, appearing for Sonam, pointed out before the Apex Court that out of the total 90 listed witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far.
“From 28.10.2025 till date, i.e. over a period of more than 7 months, only 4 witnesses have been examined. From the manner in which the trial is progressing, examination of the remaining 86 witnesses will take considerable time,” the reply said. Countering the challenge to her bail, Sonam further submitted that she has been residing in Shillong since being granted bail and has not moved out of the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The Meghalaya government had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court judgment dated June 29, 2026, which upheld the trial court’s order of granting bail to Sonam. The High Court had refused to interfere with the trial court’s order.
The trial court had reportedly granted bail to Sonam as one of the seven documents prepared at the time of her arrest carried a typographical error. The error was that in one document, “Section 403 BNS” was mentioned instead of “Section 103 BNS,” the provision under which she is charged with murder.
The State opposed the bail order, contending that the other six documents, which bear Sonam’s signature, correctly recorded the grounds of her arrest, and that she never raised the issue in her first three bail applications.
The Supreme Court on Thursday (9th July) said that it will consider referring the issue to a larger bench, noting that there are conflicting views among benches regarding whether investigating agencies are legally required to provide the grounds of arrest to an accused in writing. The court will take up the matter on 14th July.
