Meghalaya honeymoon murder: Supreme Court moots cancelling bail of accused-wife Sonam Raghuvanshi

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it was contemplating cancelling the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya.

A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the State government's challenge to the Meghalaya High Court's order upholding her release.

The Court suggested that Sonam should surrender in the interim while the trial court records the evidence of key prosecution witnesses. It indicated that it could then reconsider her bail on merits.

"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. Take instructions and come back," said the Court.

The remarks came after the Court asked Sonam's counsel to obtain instructions on whether she was willing to surrender pending further consideration of her bail.

"This doesn't require this much of argument. If you want to argue further, we will hear you. Hopefully, you'll be able to take a correct stand," stated the Court.

When Sonam's counsel pointed out that the trial court had imposed stringent conditions requiring her to remain in Shillong and attend proceedings every day, the Court said it would take those factors into account.

"We want to be fair to both sides. If the second option is taken, we will issue direction to the trial court to expedite the examination of public witnesses and thereafter we can take your bail application. Otherwise we can hear you on merit... We will consider all that. Take a clear stand. We will see," said the Court.

Sonam Raghuvanshi is accused of conspiring to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in East Khasi Hills in May 2025. She was arrested in June 2025 and later charge-sheeted for offences including murder. The trial is currently underway.

In April 2026, the District and Sessions Court at East Khasi Hills granted Sonam bail after holding that the investigating agency had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest, as required by law.

The Meghalaya government then challenged that order before the High Court. However, on June 29, 2026, the Meghalaya High Court upheld the grant of bail, observing that the "grounds of arrest" had been prepared mechanically and contained several irrelevant entries.

The State then approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of Sonam's bail.

Appearing for the State of Meghalaya, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam had conspired to murder her husband by luring him to an isolated spot in Meghalaya during their honeymoon, where three men allegedly hired through her paramour killed him before disposing of his body in a gorge.

Mehta contended that Sonam absconded after the incident and surfaced only after the co-accused had been arrested. He added that Raja's body was recovered only after ten days with the help of drones and could be identified only through tattoos and other body marks because his face was unrecognisable.

He further argued that although the arrest memo mistakenly mentioned Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103 (murder), the error was merely typographical and did not invalidate the arrest, particularly since Sonam had never disputed either the grounds of arrest or the fact that she had surrendered in any of her earlier bail applications.

Additionally, the Court was informed that only four of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The Court then turned to Sonam's counsel and remarked that the accused's conduct after the incident was central to the case.

"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. Second issue if did you dispute the no supply of grounds of arrest etc in the earlier bail applications," questioned the Court.

Sonam's counsel maintained that she had been arrested and did not surrender voluntarily. He argued that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and had received undue media attention.

The matter will now be heard on Thursday, July 23 after Sonam's counsel obtains instructions on the course suggested by the Court.

Sonam Raghuvanshi was represented by Advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad.

[Read Live Coverage ]