SHILLONG, July 21: The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested that Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of killing her husband during their honeymoon in Sohra in 2025, surrender and face trial, while questioning her conduct after the incident.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale, hearing the Meghalaya government’s plea challenging the bail granted to her, told her counsel that it would either consider the matter on merits or direct her to surrender pending trial.
“We are putting it to you because we don’t want to catch you by surprise and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us,” Justice Sundresh said.
The bench observed: “How do you explain your conduct? Their (police) case is that you along with deceased went to that place. The occurrence took place where he was attacked and died. What did you do thereafter? That’s the primary issue. Secondly, regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time?”
Sonam, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June 2025 in connection with the murder of her businessman husband Raja Raghuvanshi. The couple had gone missing while vacationing in the Sohra area on May 23, 2025. Raja’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.
Police have alleged that Sonam conspired with her lover and three hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gains.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, submitted that the couple went to Meghalaya for their honeymoon immediately after marriage. “She lured her husband to an isolated place in the hills. Three persons hired through her paramour were also following her. Eventually the husband was killed, the wife participated in it, and the body was thrown down the gorge. He didn’t die because of the throwing. He was killed first and then was thrown,” Mehta said.
He added that the paramour later instructed her to surrender, after which she surrendered in Ghazipur, and that she was fully aware of the reasons for her arrest.
Counsel for Sonam argued that the matter had been given undue hype by the media and that it was a case of circumstantial evidence.
The top court made it clear that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution’s allegations in detail at this stage. The matter will now be heard on Thursday.
The case reached the apex court after the Meghalaya High Court on June 29 upheld the trial court’s April 27 order granting bail to Sonam, citing a typographical error in the arrest memo that mentioned a non-existent Section 403 instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
