NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to overturn Maghalaya high court’s judgement which granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi who is accused of killing her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during honeymoon in the northeastern state in 2025.Transport businessman Raja Raghuvanshi went missing on May 23 last year during his honeymoon in Meghalaya.His mutilated body was later found on June 2 from a deep gorge near a waterfall in Sohra area of East Khasi Hills district. His wife Sonam, along with several others including her alleged boyfriend, was arrested in connection with the case.Why SC refused to cancel Sonam’s bail orderA partial working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed its reservation in the high court’s order granting bail. It, however, observed that that Sonam Raghuvanshi had already been released from jail and was currently in Shillong in accordance with the bail conditions imposed by the trial court.”Prima facie, we have some observations about the High Court’s judgment,” Justice Sundresh said. Addressing the accused’s counsel, who appeared on a caveat, Justice Sundresh observed that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused and that this issue had not been raised in the earlier bail applications.”Only later did you raise this ground. Is the court justified in granting bail on the technical ground that the wrong provision was cited, especially when bail had earlier been rejected on merits?” Justice Sundresh asked.How a clerical error helped Sonam get bailSonam was granted bail on April 27 after a clerical error played a key role. The FIR in the case was registered under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with murder. However, when Sonam was informed of the grounds for her arrest, the police cited Section 403(1) of the BNS instead.Section 403(1) does not exist in the BNS and under the old Indian Penal Code, Section 403 related to dishonest misappropriation of property, but that provision was not carried over into the BNS.The trial court found that the error was not limited to a single document. The incorrect section was mentioned in multiple records, including the arrest memo, checklist justifying the arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights and case diary extract. None of these documents informed Sonam that she had been arrested under Section 103, the murder charge.Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that it was merely a clerical mistake, the court observed that such an error appearing across several documents could not be brushed aside. It held that Sonam had not been properly informed of the grounds of her arrest, a legal right guaranteed to every arrested person, and granted her bail.Get the latest India news and live updates. Download the TOI App.About the AuthorTOI News DeskThe TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to the readers of The Times of India worldwide. With an unwavering commitment to excellence in journalism, our team is at the forefront of gathering, verifying, and presenting breaking news, in-depth analysis, and insightful reports on a wide range of topics. The TOI News Desk is your trusted source for staying informed and connected to the ever-evolving global landscape, ensuring that our readers are equipped with the latest developments that matter most.”Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosBluetooth Security Flaw In Some E-Rickshaw Batteries Allows Remote Shutdown: ReportsHardeep Singh Puri Busts Ethanol Fuel Myths, Says Mileage Drop Is Minor And Insurance Remains ValidOmar Abdullah Questions Backlash Over India-Pak Talks, Says RSS Favours Dialogue TooUnesco Warns Pakistan Over ‘Reconstructions’ At Taxila, Threatens Danger ListNHAI Under Fire As Delhi-Dehradun Expressway Develops Major Potholes 3 Months After Inauguration’Insult To Shivaji, Bhagat Singh’: CJP Founder Dipke Demands ACP’s Suspension Over Library RowMission Aagaman Explained: How Vikram-1 Could Make Indian Space History60-Year-Old Mumbai Man Dies After Falling Into Open Manhole, 4 BMC Officials SuspendedIndian Navy’s INS Trikand Thwarts Piracy Attempt On India-Bound Vessel In Gulf Of AdenWest Bengal Passes Tough Public Order Laws: What The Recovery And Preventive Detention Bills Mean123PhotostoriesPsychology says men who understand these 10 traits of women often build stronger and healthier relationshipsAhead of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding, here’s look at some of the most iconic celebrity weddings of all timeWhat would you do? My partner likes every post of a woman he doesn’t know; 5 women on what they did about itOnce part of poor people’s diet, these 10 foods are now luxury health staples8 things fathers do that children remember for lifeMonsoon alert: Vipers become more active during the rains—Here’s how to stay safeSpiritual house names that bring a sense of peace, positivity, and purpose60-second money lesson: The work lunch habit that’s costing you ₹20,000 a year (and how to fix that)Caffeine to keratin: The most searched hair growth ingredients with expert approval8 most popular North Indian breakfasts and their calorie count: Why they’re so loved123Hot PicksTrump tariffsWeather tomorrowEPF Scheme 2026Amarnath Yatra 2026Income Tax Return FilingMumbai rainUS unemploymentMicrosoft layoffsIndia Japal TradeTop TrendingBrittany MahomesTravis KelceKansas CityFIFA World Cup 2026GTA 6 Estimated SizeNew England PatriotsCandace OwensFIFA War DecisionCA Toppers ListAnitha Radhakrishnan
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to overturn Maghalaya high court’s judgement which granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi who is accused of killing her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during honeymoon in the northeastern state in 2025.Transport businessman Raja Raghuvanshi went missing on May 23 last year during his honeymoon in Meghalaya.His mutilated body was later found on June 2 from a deep gorge near a waterfall in Sohra area of East Khasi Hills district. His wife Sonam, along with several others including her alleged boyfriend, was arrested in connection with the case.Why SC refused to cancel Sonam’s bail orderA partial working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed its reservation in the high court’s order granting bail. It, however, observed that that Sonam Raghuvanshi had already been released from jail and was currently in Shillong in accordance with the bail conditions imposed by the trial court.“Prima facie, we have some observations about the High Court’s judgment,” Justice Sundresh said. Addressing the accused’s counsel, who appeared on a caveat, Justice Sundresh observed that the grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused and that this issue had not been raised in the earlier bail applications.“Only later did you raise this ground. Is the court justified in granting bail on the technical ground that the wrong provision was cited, especially when bail had earlier been rejected on merits?” Justice Sundresh asked.How a clerical error helped Sonam get bailSonam was granted bail on April 27 after a clerical error played a key role. The FIR in the case was registered under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with murder. However, when Sonam was informed of the grounds for her arrest, the police cited Section 403(1) of the BNS instead.Section 403(1) does not exist in the BNS and under the old Indian Penal Code, Section 403 related to dishonest misappropriation of property, but that provision was not carried over into the BNS.The trial court found that the error was not limited to a single document. The incorrect section was mentioned in multiple records, including the arrest memo, checklist justifying the arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights and case diary extract. None of these documents informed Sonam that she had been arrested under Section 103, the murder charge.Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that it was merely a clerical mistake, the court observed that such an error appearing across several documents could not be brushed aside. It held that Sonam had not been properly informed of the grounds of her arrest, a legal right guaranteed to every arrested person, and granted her bail.
