Sonam Raghuvanshi Carried Gun As Plan B To Kill Husband Raja: SG Mehta Asks Supreme Court To Cancel Bail
A dead husband is not just a case file, a section number, or a courtroom technicality. He was a son, a brother, and a human being whose life deserves justice.
NEW DELHI: A bench of Supreme Court Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu on July 3, 2026, heard the State of Meghalaya’s challenge against the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder case of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi. The case has again come into focus after the State argued that the bail order was wrongly passed despite serious allegations of a planned murder.
The State of Meghalaya has moved the Supreme Court against the High Court of Meghalaya order, which had refused to interfere with the trial court order granting bail to Sonam. The High Court had upheld the bail granted to her in April 2026 by a Shillong court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State and strongly opposed the bail. He told the Supreme Court that Sonam had absconded from Shillong, Meghalaya, and gone to Uttar Pradesh. According to him, this was a very serious fact in a murder case.
Read Also:Â Best Advocate for Transfer Petition in Supreme Court: How to Choose the Right Lawyer
The Solicitor General then placed the State’s case before the Supreme Court and said:
“I will show four pages. this is a case where the couple goes to Meghalaya, it is a pre-determined murder, wife takes husband to some hilly areas and kills..there are three accomplices…assaulted, he was killed and dead body was thrown in the hills..”
The State also told the Court that, as per the supplementary chargesheet, Sonam was allegedly carrying a gun as “Plan B”. The allegation is that if the plan to throw Raja into the valley had failed, the gun could have been used to kill him.
Read Also:Â Video & Audio Evidence Now Directly Admissible Without Certificate Under E-Evidence System
The case relates to the death of Raja Raghuvanshi, whose body was recovered from a gorge near Sohra on June 2, 2025. He had gone missing during his honeymoon with Sonam in Meghalaya. The investigation claims that the murder was planned before the couple left Indore and that Sonam allegedly acted with Raj Kushwaha and three other men.
The State’s case is that Raja was taken towards Wei Sawdong, where he was allegedly attacked with machetes and his body was thrown into a deep gorge. Sonam was later arrested from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, on June 9, 2025.
The State argued that Sonam allegedly tried to come back into the story by creating a false kidnapping angle. The prosecution also claimed that at the time of arrest, she signed several documents showing that she was informed about the grounds of arrest.
Read Also:Â Assam UCC 2026: Marriage, Divorce, Polygamy, Live-In Registration And Family Law Changes
The main reason for bail was a technical issue. One of the seven documents prepared at the time of arrest allegedly mentioned “Section 403 BNS” instead of “Section 103 BNS”. The State argued that this was only a typographical error and not a real violation of her rights.
According to the State, six other documents correctly mentioned the murder charge and were signed by Sonam. The State also argued that she never raised this point in her first three bail applications, which were earlier rejected on merits.
Read Also:Â Gujarat UCC 2026 Explained: Marriage, Divorce, Live-In Registration And Maintenance Rules Every Family Must Know
The State submitted that Sonam filed four bail applications in less than one year. The first three were rejected because the courts found a prima facie case, a possibility of flight risk, and a chance of influencing witnesses. The issue of non-communication of arrest grounds was raised only in the fourth bail plea.
The trial court accepted this argument and granted bail on April 27, 2026. The State then challenged that order before the High Court of Meghalaya, but the High Court refused to cancel the bail.
Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that both the trial court and the High Court failed to examine whether any actual prejudice was caused to Sonam. The State also said that she had legal assistance from the time of arrest and had already contested earlier bail applications without raising this technical point.
The State relied on Supreme Court judgments to argue that a procedural mistake, without real prejudice, should not automatically result in bail in a serious murder case. It also argued that repeated bail applications cannot be allowed without any real change in circumstances.
The petition also referred to forensic material, CCTV footage and seized evidence. According to the State, these materials allegedly place Sonam and the other accused on the same route as Raja before his death.
The chargesheet was filed in September 2025 against five accused persons. A supplementary chargesheet was later filed in February 2026, adding arms-related allegations against another accused.
The Supreme Court did not immediately stay Sonam’s bail. However, it issued notice to her on the State’s petition and asked for her response. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 9, 2026.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Case Title:Â State of Meghalaya vs. Smti. Sonam Raguvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu
Court:Â Supreme Court of India
Hearing Date:Â July 3, 2026
Bench:Â Justice M.M. Sundresh | Justice Sheel Nagu
For State:Â Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
Advocate-on-Record:Â Avijit Mani Tripathi
When a husband is allegedly killed, the case should not be reduced to technical paperwork. Justice must also see the life lost and the seriousness of the crime.
In murder cases, personal liberty matters, but justice for the dead man and his family matters too. Bail cannot become a casual escape route.
A typographical error should not become bigger than a human life. Procedure is important, but it should not bury the victim’s pain.
Repeated bail applications in serious offences must be examined strictly. If earlier bail pleas were rejected, a later plea must have a strong legal basis.
Men’s lives also deserve outrage and sensitivity. When a husband dies in such circumstances, society must not remain silent.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
