The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 22 July 2025, suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case, consider surrendering voluntarily and face trial while key prosecution witnesses are examined — warning that the court could otherwise rule on the merits of the Meghalaya government's plea challenging her bail. The hearing has been deferred to Thursday, 24 July 2025.

What the Court Said

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale gave Sonam's counsel time to seek instructions on whether she would agree to surrender temporarily. The bench observed that a voluntary surrender could allow the trial court to record the testimony of public witnesses before the apex court revisits the bail question.

'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 Justice Sundresh-led bench stated orally.

The court added that, should Sonam opt to surrender, it may direct the trial court to expedite the examination of public witnesses and then reconsider bail. '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 remarked.

The Section 403 vs Section 103 Dispute

The Supreme Court also questioned why the plea concerning non-communication of grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. It expressed doubt over whether a clerical error in arrest documents — citing Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103 relating to murder — was sufficient to justify the bail granted by the lower courts.

The bench asked how citing the wrong section had materially affected the accused's case at this stage, signalling scepticism about the reasoning adopted by the courts below.

What the Government and Defence Argued

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, contended that Sonam was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest. He submitted that she had signed the arrest-related documents, her family had been duly informed, and she had never raised the issue of improper communication of grounds before the magistrate or in her earlier bail applications. The wrong section reference, he argued, was a typographical error that could not invalidate the arrest.

Counsel for Sonam countered that the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence and argued that the case had received disproportionate media attention.

Background: The Honeymoon Murder Case

The case centres on the death 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 allegedly conspired with her purported lover and hired assailants to kill Raja during the trip. Police subsequently filed a chargesheet following the completion of their investigation, and the trial is currently underway.

The Shillong trial court had earlier granted bail after finding that all arrest documents incorrectly cited Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), concluding that Sonam had not been properly informed she was arrested for murder. The Meghalaya High Court upheld that order. The state government then challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, which, while declining to stay the bail order since Sonam had already been released, expressed prima facie reservations about the High Court's reasoning and directed the state to place original arrest documents on record.

What Happens Next

Sonam Raghuvanshi's counsel is expected to return with instructions on surrender when the matter is heard again on Thursday, 24 July 2025. The Supreme Court has made clear it will either hear the matter on merits or pass a surrender order — leaving the accused with a narrow window to act voluntarily before the court decides for her.