The Meghalaya government on Thursday, 2 July 2026, approached the Supreme Court challenging the Meghalaya High Court's order that upheld bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case. The state has sought urgent listing of its Special Leave Petition, citing fears that the accused may abscond.

What Happened in Court

The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, argued that bail had been granted solely because the grounds of arrest were not fully communicated to the accused at the time of her detention. After hearing the submissions, Justice Sundresh agreed to list the matter for an early hearing.

The Bail Order and Its Basis

On 29 June, a single-judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh of the Meghalaya High Court had dismissed the state's appeal and upheld a Shillong court's April 2026 bail order. The lower court had found serious procedural lapses in Sonam's arrest — specifically, that all arrest-related documents, including the arrest memo, checklist for justification of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights, and extracts of the case diary, incorrectly cited Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which pertains to the offence of murder.

The court held that the same error appeared consistently across all documents and concluded that Sonam Raghuvanshi was never formally informed she had been arrested for murder. The prosecution's contention that the error was merely typographical was rejected.

State's Arguments and High Court's Rejection

Advocate General Amit Kumar, appearing for the state before the High Court, had argued that Sonam was fully aware of the murder charge — she had signed the arrest documents, appeared before the magistrate during remand proceedings, and was represented by legal counsel from the outset. The state also relied on a Supreme Court precedent to contend that procedural irregularities are curable defects when no demonstrable prejudice to the accused is shown. The High Court, however, declined to interfere and allowed Sonam to remain on bail.

Background: The Honeymoon Murder Case

The case centres on the death of Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam for their honeymoon shortly after their marriage in May 2025. The couple went missing during a visit to Sohra (Cherrapunji), triggering a large-scale search operation. Raja's body was subsequently recovered from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls, bearing multiple injuries.

According to the Meghalaya Police, investigations revealed that Sonam had allegedly conspired with her alleged lover and hired assailants to eliminate Raja during the honeymoon trip. She remained untraceable for several days before being arrested; several other accused were also apprehended from different states. A chargesheet has since been filed and trial proceedings are currently underway.

What Comes Next

With the Supreme Court agreeing to an early hearing, the state's petition will test whether procedural errors in arrest documentation — even when consistently replicated — can sustain bail when the accused's awareness of the charge is otherwise demonstrable. The outcome could have wider implications for how courts weigh technical procedural lapses against substantive prejudice in serious criminal cases.