The Supreme Court on Friday (July 3) refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, even though it prima facie expressed reservations with the High Court's judgment upholding the bail granted to her only on the ground of a typographical error in quoting a section in the arrest memo.

Nevertheless, noting that the woman has already been released, the Court declined to stay the order, although it agreed to consider the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail order.

A partial working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice to the respondent seeking their response.

Appearing for the State of Meghalaya, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta termed the bail order "really shocking".

"This is the case where both of them went on honeymoon in Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. There were three accomplices. She killed the husband on a hill and threw the dead body into a gorge. The three assailants and the lady herself were part of the physical assault. She absconded and was arrested from Uttar Pradesh," SG gave an introduction to the case.

The SG told the Court that the High Court granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi citing non-supply of full grounds of arrest, since there was a typographical error in the mentioning of a Section invoked. He further alleged that Sonam posed a risk of absconding.

The SG then pointed out that the Magistrate who issued the transit warrant in Uttar Pradesh had recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest were supplied to her. He added that the same Shillong judge, who rejected her first bail, had recorded that there were grounds to deny her relief. However, her second bail application was allowed on the ground that in the arrest memo and documents, the police had erroneously referred to Section 403(1) BNS instead of Section 103(1) BNS (Punishment for Murder). The SG said that it was only a typographical error and only on this sole ground, she was granted bail.

"There is no 403 in BNS. 103 was mistakenly typed as 403. The Magistrate had earlier explained the grounds of arrest to the accused," the SG said. The SG contended that the bail order was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Karnataka v. Darshan, which held that clerical errors which do not cause prejudice cannot be a ground for bail.

When the bench asked about the stage of the case, the SG informed that trial was going on, and informed that there was 94 witnesses.

"Prima facie, we have some reservations about the High Court's judgment," Justice Sundresh said. Addressing the counsel for the accused - who was appearing on caveat - Justice Sundresh said that the grounds of arrest were explained to her, and this ground was not raised in previous bail applications. "After that, somehow, wisdom dawned on you, and you raised this ground. Is the Court right in granting bail on the technical ground that wrong provision was quoted, especially when bail was rejected on merits earlier?" Justice Sundresh asked.

The counsel for the accused however claimed that grounds of arrest were never communicated to her at any point. Justice Sundresh asked if that is the case, could this ground be raised belatedly. The Judge also said that if the bail is granted only on this reason, the State is not debarred from arresting her again.

The counsel for the accused then submitted that she is put to strict conditions, and has to remain in Shillong itself, and hence, there was no likelihood of absconding. He added that since the trial has started, there was no need to keep her incarcerated.

On noting that the accused has already been released, Justice Sundresh then expressed reluctance to stay the bail order. "If she is released, then we cannot stay the order," Justice Sundresh said. The Judge said that he was under the impression that she was still under custody.

The Solicitor General then attempted to persuade the bench by highlighting the gravity of crime. The bench said that it was ultimately a matter for trial.

"But for the fact that she has been released, we would have stayed the order," Justice Sundresh said.

The SG said that instances of wives killing husbands were increasing, and referred to the recent Lohagad case, where a woman allegedly killed her fiancee.

Background

On June 29, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's bail order, observing that the error showed that the arrest documents were prepared without due application of mind. Furthermore, the High Court noted that even if citing a non-existent "Section 403(1) BNS" instead of Section 103(1) was a typographical slip, its recurrence across multiple core documents cannot be swept away.

The Court observed: "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."

The crime came to light after the couple, who had tied the knot on May 12, 2025, went missing on May 23, while on their honeymoon in Meghalaya. They were last seen checking out of a homestay in Nongriat.

A few days later, their rented scooter was found abandoned near Sohrarim. Then, on June 2, around 10 days after their disappearance, Raja's body was discovered in a deep gorge near the Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills.

His wife, accused-Sonam Raghuvanshi, who was missing till June 8, was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi-Ghazipur main road. Later, the Meghalaya police stated that Sonam, along with 21-year-old Raj Kushwaha, was being considered one of the prime suspects in the murder of her husband. State Police have already filed a 700+ page chargesheet in the matter, claiming that murder was premeditated by Sonam and her alleged lover, Kushwaha.

Case : STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026