The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the main accused in the alleged conspiracy to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale allowed the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the High Court’s order that had upheld her bail.

Bail Cancelled:

The Court held that, considering the facts of the case, Sonam was not entitled to remain on bail, even though there was a dispute over whether the grounds of her arrest had been properly communicated.

Arrest Issue:

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether Sonam’s arrest became illegal because the investigating agency had allegedly failed to properly inform her of the grounds of arrest. The trial court had granted her bail after holding that this legal requirement had not been properly followed.

The Meghalaya High Court later upheld that decision, observing that the “grounds of arrest” appeared to have been prepared mechanically and contained several irrelevant entries. The State challenged these findings before the Supreme Court.

Why Bail Was Cancelled:

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not justify granting bail. The Bench observed:

“On facts we find that respondent is not entitled to bail. It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is difference between non service and giving adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second one has to see the prejudice,”

Trial Underway:

The Court further said that although the settled principle is that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” Sonam’s case was different. It noted that her earlier bail applications had already been rejected on three occasions and those orders had become final.

The Bench also noted that the trial had already begun and said allowing her to remain on bail at this stage could affect the ongoing proceedings.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the bail order and directed Sonam to surrender within three weeks. However, it gave her the liberty to apply for fresh bail if the trial is not completed within six months.

Law on Re-Arrest:

The Court also clarified the legal position on arrests. It observed:

“A non-compliance of the service of grounds of arrest will not act as a fetter to re-arrest for the purpose of investigation,”

The Bench explained that even if there is a defect in serving the grounds of arrest, the police can still re-arrest an accused if it is necessary during the investigation.

Court on Youth:

During the hearing, the Bench also made broader remarks about today’s younger generation while discussing the facts of the case. The Court observed:

“The present generation may be more knowledgeable than us but in terms of dealing with pressure, they are more vulnerable,”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded by saying that today’s youth have more information than knowledge. Justice PB Varale added:

“Whatever is being shared on WhatsApp is being treated as knowledge.”

Case Background:

The case relates to the alleged murder of Raja Raghuvanshi during his honeymoon with Sonam Raghuvanshi in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, in May 2025. According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired to have her husband killed. She was arrested in June 2025 and later charge-sheeted for offences including murder. The trial is currently in progress.

Defence’s Stand:

Appearing for Sonam Raghuvanshi, Advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad argued that the prosecution had listed 94 witnesses, but only four had been examined so far. Referring to the earlier bail order, he submitted:

“My application was allowed, saying no grounds of arrest were given to me. Stringent conditions have been imposed on me,”

He argued that the bail granted in her favour should not be cancelled.

State’s Stand:

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Sonam had voluntarily surrendered before the police. He argued that earlier Supreme Court judgments on communicating the grounds of arrest did not apply to cases where an accused voluntarily surrenders. When the defence said this argument was being raised for the first time, Mehta replied:

“We have written that she has surrendered in the charge sheet. It has never been disputed since day one.”

Arrest Memo:

The defence challenged this claim by referring to the arrest memo. Counsel argued that the records clearly showed that Sonam had been arrested and had not voluntarily surrendered. He pointed out that the arrest memo listed the place of arrest as the One Stop Centre, Ghazipur, and not a police station. He submitted:

“On item no. 10 arrest details are placed. The place of arrest is one stop shop, Gazipur. This is not the police station, it’s a shopping mall. Taken into custody at one stop centre Gazipur,”

He further questioned the State’s version, asking:

“Is it their case that I was waiting in Indore for Meghalaya police to reach Gazipur so I can go there and surrender?”

Grounds of Arrest:

The defence also argued that the grounds of arrest supplied to Sonam were defective and incomplete. Pointing to alleged errors in the document, counsel submitted:

“None of the check boxes were ticked to indicate the said charges under the box. It’s not only for the reason… instead of 103, 403 was written. It is a case where the documents supplied were incorrect and I have not been intimated the grounds of arrest,”

Court’s Question:

The Supreme Court, however, questioned whether this argument could be raised after Sonam had already unsuccessfully sought bail on merits three times. The Bench asked:

“The only point is can you raise this plea after the bail application was rejected on merits? Can the issue be raised belatedly after 3 applications?”

Finding no merit in the defence’s arguments, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.

Fresh Bail:

Before ending the hearing, the Court clarified that Sonam would not lose the right to seek bail in the future if the trial is delayed. The Bench observed:

“We will make it clear that if trial is not moving sufficiently, we will give you liberty to file a fresh application. She is a lady. We don’t know what are the circumstances that led to the arrest. We were trying to say … But in the facts of the case we can’t do it,”

Case Details: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026