SC cancels Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail in husband Raja Raghuvanshi’s murder case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, a key accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that her continued release at this stage could hinder the ongoing trial.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale set aside the bail orders passed in her favour and directed her to surrender within two weeks. The court, however, said she would be at liberty to seek bail afresh before the trial court if the trial is not concluded within six months.

“We are inclined to observe that continued enlargement on bail of the respondent at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial. In such a matter, we are inclined to set aside the bail order. The respondent has been given two weeks to surrender. In the event of the trial not concluding within six months, the respondent can submit an application seeking bail,” the Court said.

The appeal before the apex court was filed by the Meghalaya government challenging an order of a Meghalaya court granting Sonam bail after additional charges were framed following a supplementary chargesheet dated February 10, 2026.

According to the prosecution, Sonam accompanied Raja Raghuvanshi to Meghalaya for their honeymoon after their marriage, where he was allegedly murdered with the help of three accomplices. Following the incident, Sonam allegedly went missing, leading to the registration of an FIR. She was later arrested on June 9, 2025, after surrendering before the Nandganj Police Station in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur district and was subsequently produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for transit remand.

Before the Supreme Court, the prosecution argued that the allegations against Sonam were grave and contended that there was no explanation for her disappearance after the incident. It further submitted that she had been supplied with the grounds of arrest and relevant documents on June 9, 2025, and that the reference to Section 403(1) instead of Section 103(1) in the grounds of arrest was a typographical error.

Opposing the appeal, Sonam relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, contending that proper communication of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 and that the actual reasons for her arrest had not been communicated.

Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that the present case did not involve complete non-service of the grounds of arrest but rather a challenge to the adequacy of the reasons furnished.

“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 Court observed.

The court further noted that Sonam had expressed satisfaction regarding the reasons behind her arrest at the relevant stage and therefore declined to examine whether it was a case of voluntary surrender or arrest. The court also clarified that even where there is non-compliance with the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest, the investigating agency is not precluded from effecting a fresh arrest in accordance with law.

Setting aside the bail order, the court held that both the courts below had erred in granting bail despite the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that earlier orders refusing bail had attained finality. (ANI)