The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case, consider surrendering while key prosecution witnesses are examined, indicating that it could otherwise decide the Meghalaya government’s challenge to her bail on merits.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale asked Sonam’s counsel to seek instructions on whether she was willing to surrender temporarily, observing that such a course would allow the trial court to record the evidence of public witnesses before the apex court reconsiders the question of bail.
“We don’t want to catch you by surprise. Either we will consider and pass an order on merits, or we will pass an order making you surrender. You get instructions and come back to us,” the Bench, led by Justice Sundresh, orally observed.
The court indicated that, if Sonam agrees to surrender, it may direct the trial court to expedite the examination of public witnesses before taking up the bail issue again.
“I think the second option is better for you. If you want to argue further, we will hear you and then decide one way or the other,” the Bench said while posting the matter for further hearing on Thursday, July 23.
During the hearing, the apex court also questioned why the issue of the alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest stage. It further expressed doubt over whether a clerical error in the arrest documents was sufficient to justify the grant of bail.
The Bench also asked how the mention of Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), instead of Section 103 relating to murder, had materially affected the case at this stage.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the reference to Section 403 instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was only a typographical mistake.
He submitted that Sonam had signed the arrest documents, her family had been informed of her arrest, and she had never questioned the communication of the grounds of arrest before the magistrate or in her earlier bail applications.
According to Mehta, the issue was raised only at a much later stage and could neither invalidate the arrest nor justify the grant of bail.
Counsel for Sonam, however, argued that the prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and contended that the matter had attracted excessive media attention.
Earlier, while issuing notice on the Meghalaya government’s appeal, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the High Court’s bail order as Sonam had already been released. However, it had expressed prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the High Court and directed the state to produce the original arrest memo and other documents provided to the accused at the time of her arrest.
The Meghalaya government has challenged the High Court’s decision affirming the Shillong trial court’s order granting bail on the ground of alleged procedural lapses during Sonam’s arrest.
The trial court had found that all arrest-related documents incorrectly mentioned Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), and held that the accused had not been properly informed that she had been arrested for the offence of murder.
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that the error was merely typographical, the trial court ruled that the defect had prejudiced the accused’s defence.
The case concerns the murder of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon shortly after their marriage in May 2025.
According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with her alleged lover and hired assailants to kill Raja during the trip. Police have since filed a chargesheet, and the trial is currently underway.
Bureau Report
Leave a Reply