New Delhi, Jul 14: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear on July 21 a plea filed by the Meghalaya government challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of killing her husband during their honeymoon in 2025.
The accused, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the killing of her businessman husband, Raja Raghuvanshi.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya’s Sohra area on May 23 last year. Subsequently, Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was found in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.
The police alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gains.
The Meghalaya government’s plea came up for hearing on Tuesday before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Meghalaya, requested the bench to take up the matter for hearing at 2 PM.
However, the counsel appearing for the accused urged that the matter be taken up next week.
The bench posted it for hearing on July 21.
While hearing the matter on July 9, the apex court said it might refer to a larger bench the legal question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail to the accused in the case.
The top court had also indicated that it would closely examine whether the high court was justified in granting bail to Raghuvanshi on the grounds that the arrest memo contained a typographical error.
On July 3, another bench of the top court had refused to stay the high court order granting bail.
The solicitor general on July 9 raised the question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail in the “shocking” murder case.
The high court had upheld Raghuvanshi’s bail on the grounds that the police failed to supply proper written grounds of arrest, noting a “total non-application of judicious mind” because the memo cited Section 403 (which does not exist in the context) instead of Section 103(1) (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The solicitor general had argued that the error was purely clerical.
On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a trial court order granting bail to the accused.
The high court had dismissed a petition filed by the state seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on April 27.
It had held that the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”. (PTI)
