Supreme Court to hear Meghalaya's plea against Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail on July 21
The Supreme Court has fixed July 21 to hear Meghalaya's challenge to Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail. The case will test whether an arrest memo typo can weaken an arrest in a murder prosecution.
- Jul 14, 2026,
- Updated Jul 14, 2026, 3:11 PM IST
- A bench of Justices Sundresh and Varale fixed the listing date
- Police alleged Sonam plotted Raja's killing with hired assailants for money
- The couple disappeared in Sohra before Raja was found in a gorge
The Supreme Court on July 14 fixed July 21 for hearing the Meghalaya government's plea challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused of murdering her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year.
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale fixed the date after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, sought an early hearing. Counsel representing the accused requested that the matter be listed next week, following which the bench posted it for July 21.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June 2025 after police alleged she conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband, businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, for financial gain.
The couple had gone missing while holidaying in Sohra on May 23, 2025. Raja's body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2, triggering a high-profile murder investigation.
During an earlier hearing on July 9, the apex court indicated that it may refer to a larger bench the legal issue of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo, specifically the citation of an incorrect statutory provision, is sufficient to invalidate an arrest and justify the grant of bail.
The court also said it would examine whether the Meghalaya High Court was justified in upholding Sonam Raghuvanshi's bail on that basis.
On July 3, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the High Court's order granting bail to the accused.
The Meghalaya High Court had upheld the trial court's April 27 order granting bail, observing that the police had failed to provide proper written grounds of arrest. It noted that the arrest memo reflected a "total non-application of judicious mind" because it cited Section 403 instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with punishment for murder.
The state has maintained that the incorrect provision was a clerical error and argued that such a mistake should not invalidate the arrest or entitle the accused to bail in a murder case.
