{"id":195853,"date":"2026-07-23T02:50:27","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T08:20:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newslink360.space\/?p=195853"},"modified":"2026-07-23T02:50:27","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T08:20:27","slug":"honeymoon-murder-case-supreme-court-sets-aside-bail-granted-to-sonam-raghuvanshi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newslink360.space\/?p=195853","title":{"rendered":"Honeymoon Murder Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Sonam Raghuvanshi"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the bail granted <\/a>to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that the High Court and the trial court erred in granting her relief on the ground of alleged defects in the communication of the grounds of arrest.<\/p>\n

A Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale<\/b>, however, granted Sonam three weeks’ time to surrender. The Court also observed that if the trial is not concluded within six months, she will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application.<\/p>\n

Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya, the Court held that while service of grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1), the present case did not involve a complete failure to serve the grounds of arrest.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Sonam was arrested on June 9, 2025, after allegedly remaining untraceable following the death of her husband. According to the prosecution, she travelled with Raja Raghuvanshi to Meghalaya after their marriage, where he was allegedly murdered and his body thrown into a gorge with the help of three accomplices allegedly hired by her.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\" <\/a> <\/div>\n
\"\" <\/a> <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The controversy arose because the grounds of arrest referred to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah<\/i>, Sonam had argued that she had not been properly informed of the grounds of arrest, entitling her to bail. The trial court accepted the contention, and the High Court upheld that order.<\/p>\n

Rejecting the reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that there is a distinction between non-service of the grounds of arrest and inadequate particulars in the grounds supplied.<\/p>\n

“It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is 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,”<\/i> the Bench held.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that Sonam had acknowledged receipt of the grounds of arrest and relevant documents before the Magistrate, who recorded her satisfaction regarding compliance.<\/p>\n

“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,”<\/i> the Bench observed.<\/p>\n

The Court also clarified that even if an arrest is found defective for non-compliance with the requirement of serving grounds of arrest, the investigating agency is not barred from effecting a fresh arrest for the purposes of investigation.<\/p>\n

On the question of bail, the Bench emphasised that earlier orders rejecting Sonam’s bail on merits had already attained finality.<\/p>\n

“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,”<\/i> the Court said while cancelling her bail.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed Sonam Raghuvanshi to surrender within three weeks, while leaving open the remedy of seeking fresh bail if the trial does not proceed to conclusion within six months.<\/p>\n

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta <\/b>appeared for the State of Meghalaya.<\/p>\n

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944\/2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n