The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, ruling that the lower courts were wrong to free her on the basis that she had not been properly furnished with the grounds of her arrest.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale drew a sharp line between two very different situations: cases where an accused is given no grounds of arrest at all, and cases where grounds are given but are said to be inadequately worded. The Court held that only the former automatically invalidates an arrest. Where the grievance is about the adequacy of the reasons communicated, the question that must be asked is whether the accused actually suffered any prejudice as a result.
Background of the Case
Sonam had married Raja Raghuvanshi on May 12, 2025, and the couple disappeared during their honeymoon in Meghalaya after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23. Raja’s body was later found near Weisawdong Falls on June 2, and Sonam was traced near Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, on June 9. Police allege that Sonam, along with an alleged lover and three hired men, conspired to kill her husband, and have filed a chargesheet running over 700 pages describing the killing as premeditated.
Sonam’s bail plea had succeeded before the Trial Court and was upheld by the Meghalaya High Court in her fourth bail application. Both courts had relied on the fact that the arrest-grounds document cited a non-existent provision — Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — instead of the correct Section 103(1), treating this as evidence that the police had not applied their mind while preparing the document. The State of Meghalaya challenged this before the Supreme Court, and the Solicitor General, appearing for the State, argued that the wrong section number was nothing more than a typographical error, and that Sonam had in any case acknowledged receiving the arrest documents before the Magistrate after three earlier bail pleas on merits had already failed.
The Court found that this was not a case where grounds of arrest were withheld altogether, only one where their adequacy was disputed. It noted that Sonam had earlier gone on record expressing satisfaction with the reasons given for her arrest — a fact the Court treated as significant, since it meant the constitutional objection could not be revived once a bail plea had already been decided on merits.
The Court also clarified that the requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest, laid down as binding law to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution in its November 6, 2025 ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, applies only prospectively. Since Sonam was arrested on June 9, 2025 — before that ruling — it could not be invoked to invalidate her arrest.
Importantly, the Court held that even a genuine failure to properly communicate grounds of arrest would not bar the police from making a fresh arrest for investigation purposes; such a defect is not a permanent shield against prosecution.
On facts, the Court found Sonam was not entitled to bail at all, holding that her three earlier bail applications on merits had already been rejected and had attained finality, and that the trial had since commenced. While reaffirming that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, the Court reasoned that letting her remain free at this advanced stage could hinder the ongoing trial.
Directions Issued
The Supreme Court set aside the Meghalaya High Court’s order and directed Sonam to surrender within three weeks. It granted her liberty to apply for fresh bail only if the trial does not conclude within six months, clarifying that this order and the earlier rejections of her bail pleas would not come in the way of such a future application.
Case Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026