Raja Raghuvanshi murder case: SC sets aside Sonam’s bail, gives two weeks to surrender

The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that her release at this stage could affect the ongoing trial.

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale directed Sonam to surrender within two weeks. It, however, said she would be free to move a fresh bail plea before the trial court if the trial is not completed within six months.

Advertisement

The Court set aside the bail orders passed in her favour, observing that the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings warranted her custody.

“We are inclined to observe that continued enlargement on bail of the respondent at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial,” the Bench said while allowing the Meghalaya government’s appeal.

The appeal challenged an order of a Meghalaya court that granted Sonam bail after additional charges were framed following a supplementary chargesheet filed on February 10, 2026.

According to the prosecution, Sonam travelled to Meghalaya with Raja Raghuvanshi for their honeymoon after their marriage. Raja was allegedly murdered there with the help of three accomplices.

Investigators said Sonam went missing after the incident, leading to the registration of an FIR. She later surrendered before the Nandganj Police Station in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur district on June 9, 2025, and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for transit remand.

Before the Supreme Court, the Meghalaya government argued that the allegations against Sonam were serious and that she had failed to explain her disappearance after the alleged murder.

The prosecution also submitted that she had received the grounds of arrest and relevant documents on June 9, 2025. It said the reference to Section 403(1) instead of Section 103(1) in the arrest papers was only a typographical error.

Sonam opposed the appeal by relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. She argued that Article 21 requires the grounds of arrest to be properly communicated and claimed the actual reasons for her arrest had not been conveyed.

The apex court rejected the argument, distinguishing between a complete failure to furnish the grounds of arrest and a dispute over whether the reasons provided were adequate.

“It is not as if she was not served grounds of arrest. There is a difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and giving adequate reasons thereunder. In the second one, one has to see the prejudice. Secondly, such a plea has to be raised at the earliest,” the Bench observed.

The Court also noted that Sonam had earlier expressed satisfaction with the reasons communicated for her arrest. It therefore declined to examine whether the case involved a voluntary surrender or an arrest.

The Bench further clarified that even if there is non-compliance with the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest, the investigating agency is not barred from carrying out a fresh arrest in accordance with law.

Setting aside the bail order, the Supreme Court held that the courts below had erred in granting bail despite the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that earlier orders refusing bail had already attained finality.