The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave honeymoon murder case accused Sonam Raghuvanshi two choices—either surrender before the trial court for the time being or face the possibility of her bail being cancelled.
Sonam is accused of murdering her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale was hearing the Meghalaya government's challenge to the High Court order that upheld Sonam's release on bail.
During the hearing, the Bench suggested that Sonam surrender until the trial court records the statements of key prosecution witnesses. After that, the Supreme Court said it would consider her bail application on merits.
"There are two options. Either we decide the matter on merits now, or you surrender for the time being while key witnesses are examined. Once that is done, we can reconsider your bail. Think about it and take instructions," the Bench told her counsel.
The Court said this approach would ensure fairness to both sides. If Sonam agrees to surrender, it would direct the trial court to speed up the examination of important witnesses before reconsidering her bail.
"We want to be fair to both sides. If you choose the second option, we will ask the trial court to complete the examination of public witnesses quickly. Then we can hear your bail plea," the Bench observed.
The Court also remarked that the issue did not require lengthy arguments and asked Sonam to inform it of her decision by July 23.
The Supreme Court also questioned why Sonam had not raised the issue of non-communication of the grounds of arrest at the earliest stage.
It further asked whether mentioning Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), instead of Section 103, which deals with murder, was enough to justify the grant of bail.
The Shillong trial court had granted Sonam bail after finding that all arrest-related documents, including the arrest memo and case diary, incorrectly mentioned Section 403(1) instead of Section 103(1). The court held that the repeated error could not simply be treated as a clerical mistake.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the wrong section mentioned in the documents was only a typographical error.
He submitted that Sonam surrendered only after the police arrested the co-accused and had never challenged the grounds of arrest in her earlier pleadings. According to Mehta, the issue was raised much later and could not invalidate the arrest or justify bail.
On the other hand, Sonam's counsel argued that the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and said the matter has been heavily influenced by media coverage.
The case relates to the murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, who had gone to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam for their honeymoon in May 2025. The couple went missing after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat.
Their rented scooter was later found abandoned, and Raja's body was recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls on June 2.
Sonam, who remained missing for several days, was traced to a roadside eatery near Varanasi on June 8. The Meghalaya Police later named Sonam and her alleged lover, Raj Kushwaha, as the main accused in Raja Raghuvanshi's murder.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy