The Supreme Court of India is deliberating the possibility of revoking the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who stands accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. A Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale took up the State government’s appeal against the Meghalaya High Court’s decision to uphold Raghuvanshi’s bail.
Supreme Court’s Two-Pronged Approach
The Court proposed that Sonam Raghuvanshi should surrender temporarily while the trial court gathers testimony from key prosecution witnesses. The Bench indicated that it might reconsider the bail application based on its merits afterward. “There are two options. Either we will consider and pass an order on merit, or we will pass an order for you to surrender in the interim until the witnesses are examined, then we will see it on merit,” the Court stated.
The Bench sought counsel from Raghuvanshi’s lawyer regarding her willingness to surrender during this interim period. “This doesn’t require this much of an argument. If you want to argue further, we will hear you. Hopefully, you’ll be able to take a correct stand,” the Court added.
Background of the Case
Sonam Raghuvanshi faces charges of conspiring to murder her husband in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, in May 2025. Arrested in June 2025, she was subsequently charge-sheeted for murder. The case trial is ongoing. In April 2026, the District and Sessions Court of East Khasi Hills granted her bail, citing inadequate communication from the investigation agency regarding her arrest grounds.
Dissatisfied, the Meghalaya government contested the bail decision in the High Court. However, on June 29, 2026, the High Court upheld the bail, criticizing the arrest grounds as mechanically prepared and irrelevant. Subsequently, the State approached the Supreme Court for bail cancellation.
More Read
Arguments and Evidence
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Meghalaya, argued that Sonam had orchestrated the murder by enticing her husband to an isolated area. There, three accomplices allegedly hired through her paramour killed him and disposed of his body. Mehta pointed out that Sonam had initially absconded post-incident and was only located after other co-accused individuals were detained.
Mehta also addressed a typographical error in the arrest memo, which cited Section 403 instead of Section 103 (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that this did not invalidate the arrest since Sonam had not contested the arrest grounds in her previous bail applications.
The Court was informed that only four out of 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. The Court then questioned Sonam’s counsel regarding her actions following the incident and the lack of challenge to the arrest grounds in earlier bail motions.
More Read
Sonam’s counsel refuted claims that she surrendered voluntarily, arguing that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and has been sensationalized by media coverage.
Next Steps
The case will be revisited on Thursday, July 23, after Sonam’s legal team provides guidance on the Court’s proposed course of action.
