Supreme Court suggests Sonam Raghuvanshi surrender in Meghalaya honeymoon murder case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21, 2026) indicated that it may ask Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21, 2026) indicated that it may ask Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, to surrender and face trial unless she chooses to do so voluntarily while key prosecution witnesses are examined. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale, hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the grant of bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi, asked her counsel to seek instructions on whether she was willing to surrender voluntarily. “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 orally remarked. The Bench, however, indicated that voluntary surrender might be the preferable course of action. “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,” the judges told her counsel. The top court was hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against a June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court upholding a Shillong trial court’s decision granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest. Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the constitutional requirement of furnishing the written grounds of arrest had been substantially complied with.
According to him, the only defect was a typographical error in the arrest memo, which inadvertently referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, the provision dealing with murder. “This is only a typographical error, and a typographical error cannot vitiate the entire proceedings,” Mr. Mehta submitted. No ‘surprise’ arrest He further argued that Ms. Raghuvanshi had voluntarily surrendered on June 9, 2025, after remaining absconding from May 23, 2025, which indicated that she was fully aware of the nature of the allegations against her. It was, therefore, not a case in which her personal liberty had been curtailed through a “surprise” arrest, he contended. “If you go and surprise someone by arresting him, then you have to inform him about the grounds of arrest. Suppose someone is caught red-handed while committing a cognisable offence, he cannot say that he was not informed about the grounds of arrest... She knew she was absconding in a murder case, and when she surrendered, she was aware of the offence for which she was being arrested,” Mr. Mehta said. The Solicitor General also pointed out that Ms. Raghuvanshi had signed the arrest memo containing the incorrect penal provision without disputing its contents. He questioned why the alleged procedural defect had not been raised at the earliest opportunity. “She does not dispute the contents of the arrest memo when she signs it. Every typographical or grammatical error cannot be construed as rendering the arrest or the subsequent proceedings invalid... At what stage do you raise such a ground?
The BriefWire