A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale was hearing the State government's challenge against the Meghalaya High Court order that upheld Sonam Raghuvanshi’s release on bail. The court indicated that she could surrender temporarily while key prosecution witnesses are examined, after which her bail plea could be reconsidered on merits.
"There are two options. Either we will consider and pass an 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," the bench said.
The Supreme Court further clarified that if Sonam chooses the second option, it would direct the trial court to expedite the examination of public witnesses and thereafter reconsider her bail application.
"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," the court stated.
The bench observed that the matter did not require extensive arguments at this stage and asked Sonam to take a clear decision and inform the court by Thursday, July 23.
"If you want to argue further, we will hear you. Hopefully, you'll be able to take a correct stand," the court remarked.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also questioned why the issue regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest was not raised at the earliest opportunity. The bench expressed doubts over whether a clerical error in the arrest documents was sufficient grounds for granting bail.
The court also questioned how the mention of Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), instead of Section 103, which relates to murder, had materially affected the case at the current stage.
The Shillong court had earlier granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi after observing that the investigating agency failed to properly communicate the grounds of her arrest. The court noted that arrest-related documents, including the arrest memo, justification checklist, inspection memo, and case diary extract, incorrectly mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1), which deals with the offence of murder.
The court had held that the repeated error could not be treated as a mere clerical mistake.
Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam Raghuvanshi was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest and that the government's challenge was against the grant of bail rather than a direct request for bail cancellation.
Mehta submitted that mentioning Section 403 instead of Section 103 was "merely a typographical error" and could not amount to non-supply of grounds of arrest. He further argued that Sonam surrendered only after police arrested the co-accused and that she had never disputed this fact in her earlier pleadings.
The Solicitor General contended that the issue was raised only at a much later stage and could not invalidate the arrest or justify the grant of bail.
Representing Sonam Raghuvanshi, her counsel argued that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and claimed that the matter had received excessive media attention.
The case originated in May 2025 when newlyweds Raja Raghuvanshi and Sonam Raghuvanshi went missing during their honeymoon in Meghalaya after checking out from a homestay in Nongriat. Their rented scooter was later found abandoned near Sohrarim, while Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls on June 2.
Sonam, who remained missing until June 8, was later traced to a roadside eatery near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. Meghalaya Police subsequently named Sonam Raghuvanshi and her alleged lover, Raj Kushwaha, as the prime accused in the case.
The Supreme Court's direction has now placed the next course of action on Sonam Raghuvanshi, with the court indicating that the bail issue will either be examined on merits or reconsidered after accelerated trial proceedings and examination of key prosecution witnesses.
About The Author
Comment List