New Delhi: A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale on Tuesday signalled that it was inclined to cancel the bail of Sonam Raghuvanshi, prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, but offered her the alternative of voluntarily surrendering while prosecution witnesses are examined, with bail to be reconsidered on merits thereafter. The matter will be heard next on July 23, 2026.
The Supreme Court on July 21, 2026 indicated that it was contemplating cancelling the bail of Sonam Raghuvanshi, prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, while giving her counsel an opportunity to take instructions on a middle path, voluntary surrender for a limited period while the trial court records evidence of key prosecution witnesses, followed by a fresh consideration of bail on merits.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was hearing the State of Meghalaya’s challenge to a Meghalaya High Court order dated June 29, 2026, that had upheld the District and Sessions Court’s decision to grant Sonam bail. The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appeared for the State.
“There are two options. Either we will consider and pass order on merit. Or we will pass an order for you to surrender in the interregnum till the witnesses are examined, then we will see it on merit. We don’t want to surprise you. The second option may be better for you.” - Supreme Court
The Case: A Honeymoon That Ended in Murder
Sonam Raghuvanshi is accused of conspiring to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during what was presented as a honeymoon trip to East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya in May 2025. The prosecution’s case, as outlined before the Supreme Court by Solicitor General Mehta, is that Sonam lured Raja to an isolated spot where three men, allegedly hired through her paramour, attacked and killed him before disposing of his body in a gorge.
Raja’s body was recovered only after ten days, with the assistance of drones. By the time it was found, identification had to be made through tattoos and other body marks, as the face was unrecognisable. Sonam was arrested in June 2025 and subsequently charge-sheeted for offences including murder. The SG also informed the bench that Sonam had absconded after the incident and surfaced only after her co-accused were arrested. The trial is currently underway, with only four of 94 prosecution witnesses having been examined so far.
The Bail History and the Defective Arrest Memo
Sonam was granted bail in April 2026 by the District and Sessions Court at East Khasi Hills. The Sessions Court’s primary ground was that the investigating agency had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest as required by law, a constitutional obligation flowing from Article 22(1) and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India.
The Meghalaya government challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, on June 29, 2026, upheld the bail, observing that the grounds of arrest had been prepared mechanically and contained several irrelevant entries. The State then approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Mehta addressed the arrest memo issue head-on, acknowledging that the memo had mistakenly mentioned Section 403 BNS (dishonest misappropriation of property) instead of Section 103 BNS (murder). He argued this was a typographical error that did not invalidate the arrest, particularly because Sonam had never disputed the grounds of arrest or her own status in any of her earlier bail applications across multiple proceedings.
“How do you explain your conduct? Their case is that you along with deceased went to that place. And the occurrence took place. Where he was attacked and died. What did you do thereafter? That’s the primary issue.” - Supreme Court to Sonam’s counsel
The Court’s Focus: Conduct Over Technicality
The bench’s questioning of Sonam’s counsel revealed the Court’s true centre of gravity. Rather than dwelling on the technical defect in the arrest memo, the bench asked counsel directly to explain the accused’s conduct after her husband was attacked, what she did, where she went, and why she never challenged the grounds of arrest in any of her earlier bail proceedings.
Sonam’s counsel maintained that she had been arrested rather than having surrendered voluntarily, and argued that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and had received disproportionate media attention. The bench was not visibly moved, telling counsel that the matter did not require extensive argument and that the accused ought to be able to take a “correct stand.”
When counsel pointed out that the trial court had imposed stringent bail conditions, including a requirement to remain in Shillong and attend proceedings every day, the bench said it would factor those conditions into any final order. It also clarified that if the surrender option were taken, it would direct the trial court to expedite examination of prosecution witnesses, after which the bail question would be reconsidered on merits.
The bench adjourned the matter to July 23, 2026, to allow Sonam’s counsel to take instructions on the two options the Court had put on the table. The bench made clear it was prepared to hear the matter on merits if Sonam declined to surrender, but the tenor of its observations, questioning her post-incident conduct, noting that only four witnesses had been examined, and signalling that her bail was under active consideration for cancellation, left little doubt about the direction in which the Court was inclined to move.
Case Details
- Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale
- For the State: Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta
- Accused: Sonam Raghuvanshi (prime accused in alleged honeymoon murder, East Khasi Hills, May 2025)
- Bail Granted By: District and Sessions Court, East Khasi Hills, April 2026
- HC Order Challenged: Meghalaya High Court order dated June 29, 2026 upholding bail
- Offence: Section 103 BNS (Murder) and allied charges
- Prosecution Witnesses Examined: 4 of 94
- Date of SC Hearing: July 21, 2026
- Next Date: July 23, 2026
