Supreme Court Denies Intervention in Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Case Bail

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has opted not to intervene in the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case. The court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations against her but decided to refrain from action after confirming her release. The case has drawn attention due to the circumstances surrounding the couple's disappearance and the subsequent discovery of the husband's body. As the legal proceedings continue, the Meghalaya police have raised concerns about the bail, prompting further hearings. This case highlights the complexities of legal processes in serious criminal allegations.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 3, 2026, 12:52 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Bail

Sonam Raghuvanshi, the accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, will remain out on bail. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the bail granted by the High Court, although it did issue a notice regarding a petition from the Meghalaya police seeking to revoke her bail.

Sonam, a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was arrested last June in connection with the murder of her businessman husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. Authorities allege that she conspired with hired killers to orchestrate his murder for financial gain.

Background of the Case

The couple went missing while vacationing in the Sohra region of Meghalaya on May 23 last year. Raja's body was discovered in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025. The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges against Sonam and expressed readiness to hear the Meghalaya police's petition challenging her bail on Thursday. However, upon learning that Sonam had already been released, the bench stated it would refrain from intervening at this stage.

Court Proceedings and Arguments

The bench remarked, "If she has already been released, we would prefer not to intervene." Earlier in the proceedings, the court hinted at suspending the bail order but later realized that Sonam had been released.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Meghalaya police, argued that Sonam's previous bail applications had been rejected and contended that there was no basis for her arrest. He claimed the case was merely linked to a clerical error.

Sonam's attorney requested time to respond to the police's petition. During the hearing, the lawyer argued that Sonam was not provided legal assistance at the time of her arrest and transit remand. He stated that she was not informed of the grounds for her arrest and was only given a blank pro forma.

Legal Questions Raised

The bench questioned why this issue was not raised earlier, asking, "The question is, if you did not raise this issue before, should you be allowed to raise it at this stage?" The court also inquired whether such technical reasons would prevent law enforcement from re-arresting her after being granted bail.

The bench noted, "If the trial court grants bail solely on this technicality, does the law prevent them from re-arresting you?" It acknowledged that Sonam had been in jail for a considerable time, stating, "We understand she has been in jail for quite some time. Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception... We need to consider this matter."

In this case, the Meghalaya High Court upheld the trial court's order granting bail to Sonam on June 29.

High Court's Ruling

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition from the state government seeking to revoke the bail granted by the trial court on April 27. The court remarked that the manner in which the grounds for arrest were prepared indicated a lack of careful consideration.

Sonam's arrest followed the couple's disappearance during their trip to Sohra. Investigators allege that the murder was plotted with the help of hired assailants, aiming for financial gain.

Current Status of the Case

After the High Court denied the request to revoke bail, Sonam remains at the center of the investigation into Raja Raghuvanshi's death following the couple's disappearance in Meghalaya.

Opposing the revocation of bail, Sonam's lawyer argued that there was nothing left to recover and that strict conditions had already been imposed. The lawyer informed the court that Sonam was already in Shillong and could not travel, asserting that there was no possibility of tampering with evidence.

Final Remarks from the Court

In response, the bench stated it was trying to maintain balance while continuing the trial. The court remarked, "We are trying to strike a balance in this case. Let the trial continue."

During the hearing, the Solicitor General commented, "Recently, a wife killed her husband because he was wearing a wig." The bench declined to comment, stating, "We do not wish to say anything as it may lead to controversy." The Supreme Court is set to conduct a detailed hearing on the Meghalaya police's petition to revoke Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail on Thursday.