The Supreme Court has suggested that an Indore woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband during their 2025 honeymoon in Meghalaya consider surrendering to face trial, while questioning her actions immediately following the crime.
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale issued the observation while hearing an appeal filed by the Meghalaya government challenging the bail granted to the accused, Sonam Raghuvanshi. The top court indicated it would either determine the state’s petition on its merits or direct the accused to surrender, deferring further proceedings until Thursday to allow her legal counsel time to obtain instructions.
Apex Court Questions Conduct Post-Incident
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the bench directed pointed queries toward the defense regarding the behavior of the accused after her husband, businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, was killed. The justices asked her legal counsel to explain her conduct following the fatal attack in Sohra and questioned why challenges regarding the procedural grounds of her arrest were not raised at the earliest opportunity.
State Alleges Premeditated Murder for Financial Gain
Arguing on behalf of the state government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the accused lured her husband to a remote location in the hills shortly after their wedding. According to investigators, the victim was killed by three contract assailants hired through her paramour before his body was thrown into a gorge.
The state maintained that the victim died prior to being discarded in the terrain and alleged the crime was committed for financial gain. Following the murder, the accused fled the location and later surrendered to police in Ghazipur after receiving instructions from her paramour. The three co-accused were subsequently apprehended by law enforcement.
Counsel representing the accused urged the court to consider that the prosecution’s case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence and argued that the matter had received excessive media attention. The bench noted that it was not inclined to evaluate the prosecution’s detailed allegations at this stage of the proceedings.
Dispute Over Arrest Memo Typographical Error
The legal battle centers on a June 29 ruling by the Meghalaya High Court, which upheld an April 27 trial court decision granting bail to the accused. The High Court had determined that the police exhibited a lack of judicious application of mind by citing a non-existent provision, Section 403, instead of Section 103(1) governing murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the arrest memo.
While the Supreme Court previously declined to stay the High Court’s bail order on July 3, it indicated on July 9 that it may refer a broader legal question to a larger bench. That issue involves whether a typographical error in statutory sections on an arrest memo is sufficient grounds to invalidate an arrest and grant bail in grave criminal cases.
The couple had originally gone missing on May 23, 2025, while vacationing in Sohra, and the victim’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2, 2025. The accused was formally arrested later that month in June 2025.
