- Supreme Court declined to re-arrest Sonam, expressing bail reservations.
- Court noted accused already released, preventing immediate intervention.
- Meghalaya High Court granted bail citing technical error in documents.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to send murder accused Sonam Raghuvanshi back to jail, even as it expressed serious reservations about the Meghalaya High Court’s decision to grant her bail in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case.
Hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the June 29 bail order, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu observed that it was guided by the settled legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations.
“We are conscious of the fact that she was in incarceration for a while. We know that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Regardless of how heinous the crime is, we will try to think of a balanced approach,” the bench observed.
The court said it would have been inclined to stay the bail order had Sonam not already been released from prison.
“Prima facie, we would have stayed the order of bail, but since she has already been released, we would not want to intervene,” the bench said while issuing notice to Sonam and listing the matter for hearing on July 9.
Why The Supreme Court Did Not Stay The Bail
The bench noted that once an accused has been released under a judicial order, courts must exercise caution before directing their return to custody, particularly when the trial has already begun.
The judges also reiterated that criminal allegations, however grave, are matters to be determined during trial and do not override the presumption of innocence before conviction.
“These are facts and matters to be decided during the trial,” the court observed after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the allegations as “shocking” and “chilling”.
The Meghalaya government informed the court that Sonam had already been released and was in Shillong following the High Court’s order, prompting the bench to refrain from granting interim relief.
Supreme Court Questions High Court’s Reasoning
While declining to interfere immediately, the Supreme Court indicated that it was not convinced by the reasoning adopted by the Meghalaya High Court in granting bail.
“Prima facie, we have reservations on how the High Court dealt with the matter,” Justice Sundresh remarked during the hearing.
The High Court had upheld Sonam’s bail primarily on the ground that the arrest documents repeatedly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which relates to murder.
ALSO READ: Sonam Raghuvanshi To Remain Out On Bail In Honeymoon Murder Case As Supreme Court Refuses Stay
The order also referred to unrelated offences mentioned in the arrest papers, including allegations concerning offences outside India and desertion from the armed forces, describing the documents as an example of “total non-application of mind”.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned whether such an error alone was sufficient to justify bail in a murder case, particularly when Sonam had been informed of the reasons for her arrest and had not raised the issue in her three previous unsuccessful bail applications.
“Fact remains you have been informed. Earlier bail applications, you did not raise the issue. It is not the case that grounds have not been provided,” the bench orally observed.
Meghalaya Government Calls Error A Typographical Mistake
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court had granted bail on a technicality despite substantial evidence gathered during the investigation.
According to the prosecution, Raja Raghuvanshi’s murder was part of a pre-planned conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by Sonam along with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and other co-accused.
Mehta told the court that Sonam travelled to Meghalaya with three accomplices, actively participated in the assault and later helped dispose of Raja’s body by throwing it into a gorge.
The state further argued that mentioning Section 403 instead of Section 103 in the arrest documents was merely a typographical error that caused no prejudice to the accused.
Background Of The Raja Raghuvanshi Murder Case
Raja Raghuvanshi, a 29-year-old businessman from Indore, travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam shortly after their wedding in May 2025 for their honeymoon.
The couple went missing after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23. Raja’s body was later recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls in Sohra, while Sonam was traced days later in Uttar Pradesh.
The Meghalaya Police subsequently filed a chargesheet running over 700 pages, alleging that the murder was part of a premeditated conspiracy involving Sonam and her alleged associates.
The trial is currently underway, with witnesses already being examined.
ALSO READ: Honeymoon Murder Case: Meghalaya Govt Challenges HC Bail Granted To Sonam Raghuvanshi In SC
