SC cancels Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail in Raja honeymoon murder case, orders surrender in 3 weeks

New Delhi, July 23 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case, directing her to surrender before the trial court within three weeks.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale allowed the Meghalaya government's appeal against the High Court order upholding the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, while clarifying that she would be at liberty to apply for fresh bail if the trial is not concluded within six months.

Setting aside the reasoning adopted by the courts below, the apex court held that there was a distinction between complete non-service of the grounds of arrest and alleged inadequacy in the particulars furnished.

"On facts, we find that the respondent (Sonam) is not entitled to bail. It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is a difference between non-service and giving adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second one has to see the prejudice," the Justice Sundresh-led Bench observed.

The Supreme Court further observed that Sonam had acknowledged receipt of the grounds of arrest and other relevant documents before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who had recorded her satisfaction regarding compliance with the statutory requirements.

"The respondent expressed her satisfaction on the reasons behind her arrest. Documents were indeed served on her. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the issue of the validity of the arrest. Suffice it to state that both courts have committed an error by granting bail on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court," the Justice Sundresh-led Bench observed.

The top court also clarified that even if an arrest is found defective for non-compliance with the requirement of serving the grounds of arrest, the investigating agency is not precluded from effecting a fresh arrest for the purposes of investigation.

On the question of bail, the Supreme Court said that while "bail is the rule and jail is the exception", the present case stood on a different footing as Sonam's earlier bail applications had already been rejected on merits and those orders had attained finality.

"We are also conscious of the fact that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. However, we are dealing with a case where the earlier bail orders rejecting enlargement on merit have attained finality. The trial has already begun. We are inclined to observe that continued enlargement at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial," the Justice Sundresh-led Bench said.

The apex court directed Sonam Raghuvanshi to surrender within three weeks, while granting her liberty to move a fresh bail application if the trial does not conclude within six months.

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam had surrendered before the police and that the challenge based on the communication of the grounds of arrest was misconceived.

He submitted that none of the precedents relied upon by the accused dealt with a situation where an accused had surrendered.

Referring to the chargesheet, SG Mehta said the fact of surrender had been consistently recorded by the prosecution and was never disputed.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for Sonam Raghuvanshi contended that she had not surrendered but was arrested from Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh.

Referring to the arrest memo, it was argued that the prosecution was incorrectly portraying the arrest as a surrender and reiterated that the documents supplied at the time of arrest did not properly communicate the grounds of arrest.

Sonam’s counsel also submitted that only four out of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, a supplementary chargesheet had already been filed, and Sonam had complied with all the conditions imposed while granting her bail.

However, the apex court was not persuaded by the submissions and held that the plea regarding the grounds of arrest could not be raised belatedly after earlier bail applications had already been rejected on merits.

The Meghalaya government had challenged the Meghalaya High Court's judgment affirming the Shillong trial court's order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi on the ground that the arrest-related documents mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which deals with the offence of murder.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court suggested that Sonam consider surrendering and face trial pending the examination of key prosecution witnesses, observing that it could otherwise proceed to decide the Meghalaya government's special leave petition on merits.

It had indicated that temporary surrender could facilitate expeditious recording of evidence before reconsidering the issue of bail.

The Justice Sundresh-led Bench had also expressed doubts over whether the clerical error in the arrest documents was sufficient to justify the grant of bail.

On July 3, while issuing notice on the Meghalaya government's plea, the top court had declined to stay the bail order since Sonam had already been released, though it had expressed prima facie reservations about the High Court's reasoning.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed the state authorities to place on record the original arrest memo and other documents supplied to the accused at the time of her arrest.

The case relates to the murder 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. According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with her alleged lover and three accomplices to murder Raja during the honeymoon, after which his body was allegedly dumped into a gorge.

Following completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and the trial is presently underway.

Source: IANS