‘Clerical Error Can't Justify Bail’: SC Hints At Sonam Raghuvanshi's Surrender In Honeymoon Murder Case
‘Clerical Error Can't Justify Bail’: SC Hints At Sonam Raghuvanshi's Surrender In Honeymoon Murder Case Published By, Last Updated: July 21, 2026, 14:33 IST The
‘Clerical Error Can't Justify Bail’: SC Hints At Sonam Raghuvanshi's Surrender In Honeymoon Murder Case Published By, Last Updated: July 21, 2026, 14:33 IST The High Court had granted bail to Sonam on the ground that the arrest documents repeatedly referred to a non-existent “Section 403(1)” of the BNS. Rapid Read The court also indicated that if Sonam surrendered, it could direct the trial court to record the statements of public witnesses before reconsidering her bail plea. Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Case: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concerns over the basis on which Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of killing her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in 2025, was granted bail by the High Court and indicated that she may have to surrender before the police. While hearing a petition filed by the Meghalaya government challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale questioned Sonam’s conduct and asked why the plea regarding the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. “Your conduct itself—how do you explain? The case of the prosecution is that you along with the deceased went to that place. That is the foundational fact. So, we will not go into the other issues. Number two, regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time?" Justice Sundresh asked as quoted by the Livelaw.
The top court also questioned whether the clerical error in the arrest memo, which mentioned a non-existent Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, was significant enough to justify bail. “How does the reasoning given by the High Court that Section 403 is Section 103, how does it matter at this stage of the case?" Justice Sundresh remarked. The Supreme Court further indicated that it was inclined either to decide the matter on merits or ask Sonam to surrender pending the examination of key witnesses. “Either we will consider and pass an order on merits or we will pass an order making you surrender. We are putting it to you because we don’t want to catch you by surprise and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us," Justice Sundresh said. Suggesting what it considered the preferable course, the judge added, “I think the second option is better for you. If you want to argue further, we will hear you and then decide one way or the other." Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam was aware of the grounds of her arrest and that the mention of Section 403 instead of Section 103 in the arrest memo was merely a typographical error that could not justify bail. He also pointed out that Sonam had not challenged the alleged non-supply of grounds of arrest before the magistrate or in her earlier bail applications.
The BriefWire