SC seeks arrest records in Sonam Raghuvanshi bail case, defers hearing to 14 July

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Meghalaya government to place on record the arrest memo and other documents supplied to Sonam Raghuvanshi at the time of her arrest, while deferring hearing on the state’s challenge to her bail till 14 July in the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case.

A Bench of justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar did not pass any interim order staying the bail granted to Sonam, the prime accused in the case, meaning she will continue to remain on bail for now.

The case relates to the murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife Sonam for their honeymoon shortly after their marriage in May 2025. According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with her alleged lover and hired assailants to kill Raja during the trip. Police have since filed a chargesheet and the trial is underway.

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court had erred in upholding the grant of bail by treating what he described as a typographical error in the arrest documents as a serious procedural lapse.

Calling it a “very serious case”, Mehta told the court that written grounds of arrest had been supplied to the accused and that the only discrepancy was the mention of Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1), which deals with murder.

He submitted that there had never been any dispute over whether the grounds of arrest were furnished to Sonam.

The Bench, however, observed that the issue was not confined to the communication of statutory provisions, but also whether the accused had been informed of the broad factual basis of the case against her.

When the solicitor general sought permission to file a typed compilation of documents, the court directed the state to produce photocopies of the original arrest memo and other records supplied to Sonam at the time of her arrest.

“We have to see if this ground is sustainable or not,” the Bench observed while listing the matter for further hearing on 14 July.

In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, Sonam claimed she had been falsely implicated and said the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. She argued that she could not be presumed guilty solely on the basis of allegations.

She further said no recovery remained to be made from her, the chargesheet had already been filed, and she had been complying with the bail condition requiring her to stay in Shillong. She also maintained that there was no possibility of her tampering with evidence.

The Meghalaya government has challenged a 29 June judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which upheld a Shillong trial court’s order granting Sonam bail.

On 3 July, the Supreme Court had issued notice on the state’s plea but declined to stay the high court order, noting that the accused had already been released on bail. It had, however, expressed prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the high court and sought Sonam’s response.

The high court had refused to interfere with an April 2026 order of the additional deputy commissioner (judicial), Shillong, granting bail after holding that there were serious procedural lapses in the arrest process.

The trial court had noted that the arrest memo and other arrest-related records referred to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1) and held that the accused had not been properly informed that she had been arrested for the offence of murder. It rejected the prosecution’s argument that the discrepancy was merely typographical and said the error had prejudiced the accused’s defence.

With IANS inputs