The Supreme Court 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 pending the examination of key prosecution witnesses, while indicating that it could otherwise decide the Meghalaya government’s challenge to the grant of bail on merits.
The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the state government’s appeal against the Meghalaya High Court judgment upholding the trial court’s order granting bail to Sonam.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned Sonam’s conduct following the alleged offence and sought an explanation as to why the plea regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest was not raised at the earliest available opportunity.
The Court also expressed reservations about whether the clerical error in the arrest memo, which formed the basis of the High Court’s decision, was sufficient to justify the grant of bail.
The Bench observed that it was considering two possible courses of action. It indicated that it could either hear the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order or direct Sonam to surrender pending further proceedings.
The Court suggested that the latter course may be more appropriate, stating that if Sonam surrendered, it could direct the trial court to expedite the examination of public witnesses and thereafter reconsider her plea for bail. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Thursday, when Sonam’s counsel is expected to obtain instructions on the proposed course.
The Court further questioned the legal significance of the reference to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a non-existent provision, instead of Section 103 relating to murder, in the arrest memo. It indicated that the substantive allegations against the accused and the communication of the gravamen of the accusation were more relevant than a mere clerical error in the provision cited.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the challenge before the Supreme Court concerned the legality of the grant of bail rather than cancellation based on subsequent events.
He contended that Sonam had allegedly conspired with her alleged paramour, Raj Kushwaha, and three hired assailants to murder her husband during their honeymoon by luring him to an isolated location in East Khasi Hills, where he was allegedly killed and his body thrown into a gorge.
The Solicitor General argued that Sonam surfaced only after the police had apprehended the co-accused and had never disputed either the grounds of arrest or the circumstances of her arrest before the Magistrate or in her earlier bail applications.
According to the State, the plea regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest was raised only in the third round of bail proceedings after legal advice and therefore lacked credibility.
Mehta further submitted that the reference to Section 403 instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error and did not invalidate the arrest or amount to non-communication of the grounds of arrest under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution.
Relying on the decision in Madhu Limaye, he argued that the constitutional requirement is that an accused must be informed of the substance of the allegations to prevent arbitrary arrest, not that every statutory provision must be correctly cited.
He also informed the Court that Sonam had signed the arrest documents, her family had been informed about the arrest, and written grounds of arrest had in fact been supplied. The State further pointed out that only four out of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.
The counsel appearing for Sonam opposed the State’s submissions, contending that the prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and had been significantly influenced by extensive media coverage. It was also argued that Sonam had been arrested rather than having voluntarily surrendered.
The Bench, however, clarified that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution evidence in detail at the present stage and confined its observations to the issues arising from the grant of bail and the alleged procedural defects in the arrest.
The Meghalaya government has challenged the High Court’s decision affirming the trial court’s order granting bail. The High Court had held that the repeated reference to the non-existent Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1) in multiple arrest-related documents reflected non-application of mind and undermined the validity of the arrest process.
It was observed that the foundational defect in the arrest documents could not be treated as a mere typographical mistake.
Earlier, while issuing notice on the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the operation of the bail order since Sonam had already been released, although it had expressed prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the High Court.
The Court had also indicated that it may consider referring to a larger Bench the larger constitutional issue of whether the grounds of arrest are mandatorily required to be supplied in writing to an accused at the time of arrest in view of divergent judicial precedents.
The case arises out of the alleged murder of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who married Sonam in May 2025 before the couple travelled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. They went missing on May 23 after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat.
Their rented scooter was later recovered abandoned near Sohrarim, and Raja’s body was found on June 2 in a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills. Sonam, who remained untraceable until June 8, was later found near a roadside eatery on the Varanasi-Ghazipur highway.
As per the prosecution, Sonam, along with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha, had orchestrated a premeditated conspiracy to eliminate her husband with the assistance of hired assailants. The investigating agency has since filed a charge sheet exceeding 700 pages, and the criminal trial is presently underway.
The post Supreme Court suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi surrender pending trial, questions delay in raising arrest plea appeared first on India Legal.