The State of Meghalaya has challenged Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail, arguing that Raja’s murder during the honeymoon was not accidental but carefully planned.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar is hearing the State of Meghalaya’s challenge against the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya.
Sonam Raghuvanshi has told the Supreme Court that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Her stand is that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution will have to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt during trial.
In her reply filed through AOR Abhay Singh, Sonam has said that mere allegations against her cannot prove the offence, especially when the case depends on circumstances and not direct evidence. She has also said that she is not delaying the trial and is fully cooperating with the court process.
Sonam has pointed out that the chargesheet mentions 90 witnesses, but only 4 witnesses have been examined so far. According to her, 86 witnesses are still left to be examined, and therefore the trial may take a long time.
Sonam has also said that she is presently living in Shillong and has not moved outside the jurisdiction of the trial court at any point of time.
The Supreme Court has said that it will hear the matter in detail on July 14, 2026. The bench has also directed the parties to file written submissions before that date.
While noting the seriousness of the case, the Supreme Court observed:
“We will consider this matter at length and see if the matter is to be referred to a larger bench.”
Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, strongly opposed the bail granted to Sonam. He submitted that Sonam had absconded from Shillong, Meghalaya to Uttar Pradesh and argued that the facts of the case were shocking.
SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that:
“I will show four pages. this is a case where the couple goes to Meghalaya, it is a pre-determined murder, wife takes husband to some hilly areas and kills..there are three accomplices…assaulted, he was killed and dead body was thrown in the hills..”,
The State has also claimed that, as per the supplementary chargesheet, Sonam had a Plan B and was allegedly carrying a gun in case the plan to throw Raja into the valley failed.
The Supreme Court had earlier refused to stay the order granting bail to Sonam, but issued notice on the plea filed by the State of Meghalaya. The State has challenged the June 29, 2026 judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, which refused to interfere with the trial court order granting bail to Sonam.
According to the State, the trial court granted bail mainly on a technical ground. One of the documents prepared at the time of Sonam’s arrest mentioned Section 403 BNS instead of Section 103 BNS, which is the murder provision under which she is charged.
The State has argued that this was only a typographical error. It has said that six other documents signed by Sonam correctly mentioned the grounds of arrest and that she had been informed about the case against her.
The State has also said that Sonam did not raise this issue in her first three bail applications. According to the petition, this point was raised only in the fourth bail application filed in April 2026.
The case relates to the death of Raja Raghuvanshi, whose body was recovered from a gorge near Sohra on June 2, 2025. He had gone missing during his honeymoon with Sonam.
The investigators allege that Raja’s murder was planned before the couple left Indore. The State claims that Sonam conspired with Raj Kushwaha and three other men, who allegedly moved with the couple before Raja was attacked near Wei Sawdong and his body was thrown into a deep gorge.
Sonam was arrested from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh on June 9, 2025. The State alleges that she had tried to return with a false kidnapping story after the incident.
The petition also refers to forensic material, CCTV footage and other seized material, which according to the State, connect Sonam and the other accused with the movement of Raja before his death.
Raja’s brother, Vipin Raghuvanshi, had filed the missing person complaint, which later led to the registration of the FIR. The chargesheet was filed in September 2025 against five accused persons, and a supplementary chargesheet was later filed in February to add arms-related charges against another person.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | Role In This Case |
| Article 22(1), Constitution of India | Right to know arrest grounds and consult lawyer. | Core issue. Sonam said arrest grounds were not properly given. |
| Article 141, Constitution of India | Supreme Court law binds all courts. | Used to rely on Supreme Court rulings on arrest grounds. |
| Section 47(1), BNSS, 2023 | Police must tell arrest grounds. | High Court held this was violated. |
| Section 48, BNSS, 2023 | Arrest intimation procedure. | State claimed procedure was followed. |
| Section 528, BNSS, 2023 | High Court’s inherent powers. | State used it to challenge bail. |
| Section 483(3), BNSS, 2023 | Bail powers of High Court/Sessions Court. | Invoked in the State’s petition. |
| Section 103, BNS, 2023 | Murder provision. | Correct section for murder charge. |
| Section 403 BNS / 403(1) BNS | Wrong section mentioned in arrest paper. | State called it typo; Court found serious defect. |
| Section 238(a), BNS | Offence linked to false information/evidence. | Mentioned in case record. |
| Section 309(6), BNS | Robbery/dacoity-related provision. | Mentioned among registered sections. |
| Section 3(6), BNS | Group/common liability provision. | Used with other BNS sections. |
| Section 25(1)(A), Arms Act | Illegal possession/use of arms. | Linked to arms-related allegations. |
| Section 35, Arms Act | Joint liability in arms offences. | Mentioned with Arms Act charge. |
| Section 394, BNSS | Procedure about released convicts. | Court found this irrelevant in arrest paper. |
| PMLA, 2002 | Money-laundering law. | Cited while discussing arrest-ground rulings. |
| UAPA, 1967 | Anti-terror law. | Cited in arrest-ground legal debate. |
| IPC / BNS | Criminal offence laws. | Court considered if arrest rules apply to regular offences too. |
| CrPC / BNSS | Criminal procedure laws. | Case focused on arrest and bail procedure. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: State of Meghalaya vs. Smti. Sonam Raguvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Matter Type: Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Meghalaya
- Bench: Justice Manoj Misra | Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
- Counsels:
- For State: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
- For Sonam Raghuvanshi: AOR Abhay Singh.
- Next Date Of Hearing: 14 July 2026
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Bail in a husband murder case cannot be treated casually, especially when the State alleges pre-planning, accomplices, escape route, and a false kidnapping story.
- Technical defects should not bury the victim’s voice, if other arrest documents correctly informed the accused about the murder charge.
- Raja Raghuvanshi’s case shows how a husband can become invisible, while the legal debate shifts from the killing to paperwork.
- Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and in planned crimes, direct eyewitnesses are often missing by design.
- Men’s lives also deserve serious judicial protection, especially in marriage-related crimes where the husband is the victim and the wife is the prime accused.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
