Supreme Court Seeks Response from Accused in Honeymoon Murder Case
The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore, in response to a plea seeking the cancellation of her bail. This plea arises from allegations of her involvement in the murder of her husband during their honeymoon in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya [State of Meghalaya v Sonam Raguvanshi]. The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu, is reviewing the plea made by the State of Meghalaya against the trial court’s bail grant, which was upheld by the Meghalaya High Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State, described the case as particularly “shocking.” He detailed how the couple traveled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon, where the husband was allegedly murdered in a premeditated manner by assailants brought by Raghuvanshi. Following the murder, the husband’s body was disposed of in a gorge. Raghuvanshi was apprehended in Uttar Pradesh after evading arrest.
Initially, the Supreme Court considered staying the High Court’s order, but refrained since Raghuvanshi had already been released from custody. The court remarked, “If she is released already, then we cannot order her arrest again.” The case has been scheduled for a hearing on July 9, with instructions for Raghuvanshi to submit her response.
Questions Over Grounds of Arrest
Raghuvanshi faces charges of conspiracy in the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, allegedly in collaboration with her lover, Raj Kushwaha, and three others. Following her arrest in June 2025, she was charge-sheeted and remains on trial.
The trial court, in its order dated April 27, criticized the procedural missteps by the investigating agency, noting that the charges were not clearly communicated to Raghuvanshi. The court highlighted a typographical error in the arrest memo, citing Section 403 instead of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which led to confusion over the grounds for her arrest.
More Read
Upon this basis, the trial court granted bail, which the State contested in the High Court. The High Court, while examining the arrest documentation, identified inconsistencies and irrelevant entries, such as references to military desertion and international offenses, ultimately supporting the trial court’s decision.
State’s Argument for Bail Cancellation
The State has since approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s decision was flawed in both law and fact. The plea contends that Raghuvanshi was informed of her arrest grounds through multiple signed documents, and previous bail applications contained correct legal citations, negating claims of miscommunication.
SG Mehta argued that sufficient evidence suggested Raghuvanshi’s involvement and potential to abscond. “It was noted that there is prima facie material to believe that the accused was involved and could abscond,” Mehta stated. However, the accused’s counsel maintained that the arrest grounds were never communicated before the transit order.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging procedural issues, emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, noting, “However heinous the crime is, bail is the rule jail is an exception.” The court has requested further submissions and will revisit the case on July 9.
