The Supreme Court refused to stay the order passed by the Meghalaya High Court granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the "honeymoon murder" case.

While the vacation bench expressed strong prima facie reservations about the High Court order granting her relief, the Court noted that since she had already been released from physical custody, it would not pass an interim order to send her back to jail at this stage as the trial progresses.

Yesterday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State, sought an urgent listing of the matter, emphasizing the gravity of the offence. Acceding to the request, the Bench directed the Registry to list the matter for the hearing.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu said, "Taking note of the submissions, we are not inclined to pass an ad-interim order of stay at this stage. Let the counter-affidavit be filed within four days. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed subsequently. List the matter for further hearing next Thursday. Liberty is granted to the parties to file additional documents and relevant portions of the chargesheet in the interim."


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Meghalaya.

Mehta submitted, "This is really shocking...I will show four pages. It is a case where both of them go to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. It is a predetermined murder. The wife takes husband to some hilly areas and killed him. She participates in the assault, too. The body is thrown in the valley...which was found ten days thereafter. She absconded and was found in UP. Magistrate says he was satisfied that the grounds of arrest were communicated."

The SG pointed out that at the initial stage, the Magistrate was explicitly satisfied that the necessary grounds of arrest had been duly communicated to the accused. He further underscored that her previous bail applications were rejected by courts, noting that there was strong prima facie material linking her to the crime and a high risk of her absconding.

The SG argued that the court relied on a non-existent provision—Section 403 of the BNSS—to grant her relief, which he contended was an untenable ground given the gravity of the offence.

Justice Sundresh expressed prima facie reservations regarding the High Court’s order. He noted that the respondent had been questioned about the grounds of arrest but had completely failed to raise the issue of non-communication in her three previous bail applications.

The Bench remarked that this did not appear to be a case where the grounds of detention were entirely unserved, validating the state's concerns.

"Take it as a premise that this Court has serious reservations about the manner in which the High Court handled this matter. Earlier, the jurisprudence was focused on strict procedural adherence, but here, the facts are entirely different. First, you were informed of the grounds and the material facts were disclosed to you. Second, you failed to agitate this issue in your first three bail applications. Third, this is not a case where the grounds of detention were entirely unserved. There is a vast difference between non-service of grounds and a simple typographical error in a provision's citation. When a wrong penal provision is cited but the factual matrix is fully disclosed, the prejudice-oriented test must apply", the Court said.

Counsel for the Respondent/Accused vehemently countered that the respondent was taken into custody even before the transit remand order was formally passed. The defence maintained that absolutely no grounds of arrest were communicated to her at the time of her initial apprehension.

Counsel for Respondent added, "My Lords, with great respect, that is not the case here. It is not merely a typographical error. No grounds of arrest were communicated to the respondent at any point in time. She was initially arrested on June 9, 2025, under a transit remand order, where she was completely unrepresented by counsel."

The Bench said, "If it was completely unserved, that places it on a different footing. But the record indicates it was served on her. The incidental issue is: if it was served, at what stage can you raise this plea after failing to do so repeatedly?"

Counsel for Respondent responded, "What was actually served—it was a standard pre-printed proforma checklist. It did not contain a single factual allegation specific to this case."

Justice Sundresh replied, "Even if we examine that, if the Trial Court and the High Court enlarged you strictly on this technical footing without touching the merits, would the law debar the investigating agency from re-arresting you tomorrow by serving a corrected grounds of detention? Think about it. The law would not debar them. That is why we are suggesting that you file a comprehensive response, and we will evaluate the trial's progress."

Justice Sundresh initially indicated an inclination to stay the operation of the High Court's order to monitor the progress of the trial. He observed that while the principle of "bail is the rule, jail is an exception" holds true regardless of how heinous a crime is, the procedural history warranted scrutiny.

When the defence counsel pointed out that a stay would effectively strip the respondent of her freedom while she was in Shillong, Justice Sundresh clarified that a stay would merely put the bail on hold rather than cancel it permanently. 

However, upon learning from the defence that the respondent had already been physically released from custody, the Bench altered its course.

Justice Sundresh stated that the Bench had been operating under the assumption that she was still detained. The Supreme Court observed that since she was already at liberty, it could not pass an interim order to summarily send her back to jail.

Justice Sundresh, "If she has already been released, then we cannot pass an interim order to summarily send her back to custody. We were operating on the premise that she was still under detention. We appreciate that the state acted promptly. We granted urgent listing today on the assumption that she was still in custody. Now that she is at liberty, we will not pass an ex-parte or interim stay today. Let the respondent file a detailed counter-affidavit."

The SG concluded by noting that the Advocate General of Meghalaya had previously sought an immediate stay from the High Court, but the roster bench had declined to list it urgently at that time.

The present Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State of Meghalaya, challenging the order of the Meghalaya High Court dated June 29, which upheld the grant of bail to the Respondent/Accused, Sonam Raghuvanshi. The Respondent stands arrayed as the prime accused in the premeditated murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, which allegedly transpired during their honeymoon in May 2025.

The brief facts leading to the registration of the criminal case were that the deceased and the Respondent intermarried on May 12, 2025, and subsequently proceeded to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. The couple went missing on May 23, 2025, after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat. Shortly thereafter, their rented two-wheeler was recovered in an abandoned condition near Sohrarim.

On June 2, 2025, the corpus delicti of the deceased was discovered in a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls in the East Khasi Hills district. The Respondent, who remained untraceable until June 8, 2025, was subsequently apprehended near the Varanasi-Ghazipur highway. Following investigation, the State Police filed a comprehensive chargesheet exceeding 700 pages, implicating the Respondent and her alleged paramour, Raj Kushwaha, for offences including criminal conspiracy and premeditated murder.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, initially enlarged the Respondent on bail on the primary ground of a procedural infraction committed by the investigating agency. The Trial Court observed that the police failed to effectively communicate the specific grounds of arrest to the Accused, thereby violating statutory safeguards and causing prejudice to her defence. Specifically, the police, in the checklist for justification of arrest and the case diary extracts, erroneously recorded Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1) of the BNS, which prescribes the punishment for murder.

In the impugned order dated June 29, the High Court of Meghalaya sustained the findings of the Trial Court, observing that the repetitive citation of a non-existent penal provision across core police documents demonstrated a total non-application of mind by the investigating officer.

The High Court held that since the foundational basis of the arrest documentation was fundamentally flawed, subsequent remedial measures by the prosecution could not cure the initial illegality, thereby validating the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in favour of the Accused.

The High Court observed that the checklist was prepared mechanically without any specific facts or charges tailored to the murder case. It included absurd clauses completely unrelated to the accused, which reflected a absolute lack of judicious application of mind by the arresting agency.

The High Court had held, "The foundational basis for building up a case against the accused/respondent being found lacking, all other attempts to rectify the subsequent actions or process will have to fail. Though this Court will not comment on the course of investigation and the findings thereof, the subsequent charge sheet filed and the eventual framing of charges against the accused/respondent not being questioned, the trial as such is not at all vitiated, the only concern raised is with regard to the procedure adopted at the initial stage, when the grounds of arrest are required to be made known and duly furnished to the arrestee."

Consequently, the High Court held that the Trial Court was fully justified in granting bail due to procedural and constitutional non-compliance. Finding no perversity in the lower court's decision, the High Court dismissed the State's petition on June 29, 2026.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court will hear the matter next on July 9, 2026

Cause Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi [SLP(Crl) No.11944/2026]

Tags: