Honeymoon murder case: Why SC refused to cancel Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail order | India News

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.