The Supreme Court on Friday, 4 July 2025, issued notice on a petition filed by the Meghalaya government 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 apex court, however, declined to stay the bail order, noting that Sonam had already been released from custody.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu directed Sonam Raghuvanshi to file a counter-affidavit and listed the matter for further hearing the following Thursday.

What the Supreme Court Observed

The Bench expressed reservations about the High Court's reasoning, even as it stopped short of reversing the bail. Justice Sundresh, speaking for the Bench, said: 'We have a reservation, prima facie, about the High Court order. We will see how the trial proceeds. The fact remains that she was informed about the grounds. In the earlier bail pleas, she did not raise this issue.'

The court's reluctance to stay the order was explicitly tied to the fact that the accused had already walked free — a practical reality that made an immediate stay largely moot.

Meghalaya Government's Arguments

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that the courts below had failed to consider relevant material and that the grounds of arrest had, in fact, been communicated to the accused. He told the apex court that the trial was already underway and that more than 90 prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined. He further contended that the High Court judgment set a 'wrong precedent' on the question of procedural lapses in arrest documentation.

Why Bail Was Granted: The Procedural Lapse

The bail chain began with an April 2026 order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, which found serious procedural errors in Sonam's arrest. Specifically, 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 is the provision dealing with murder.

The trial court held that this was not a mere typographical error, given that the same mistake appeared consistently across every arrest document. It concluded that Sonam was never formally informed that she had been arrested for murder, thereby prejudicing her defence.

On 29 June 2025, a single-judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh of the Meghalaya High Court upheld this reasoning, refusing to interfere with the bail order and dismissing the state government's appeal. The state had argued before the High Court that the procedural lapse caused no actual prejudice and cited a Supreme Court precedent holding such irregularities to be curable defects — an argument the High Court rejected.

The Underlying Case

Raja Raghuvanshi, an Indore-based businessman, travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam shortly after their marriage in May 2025 for their honeymoon. His body was subsequently recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls. According to the Meghalaya Police, Sonam allegedly conspired with her alleged lover and hired assailants to kill her husband during the trip. A chargesheet has been filed and the trial is currently underway.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court will take up the matter for substantive hearing next Thursday. The Bench's observation that it holds 'prima facie reservations' about the High Court order signals that the state's challenge will receive close scrutiny, even if the bail itself remains operative for now. The outcome could have implications for how courts weigh procedural lapses in arrest documentation against the state's right to prosecute serious offences.