Meghalaya HC upholds Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail in honeymoon murder case: Why the court allowed the prime accused to walk out of jail

On 29th June (Monday), the Meghalaya High Court upheld an order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi. She is the prime accused in the May 2025 “honeymoon murder” of her husband, Raja Raghivanshi, where she conspired with her lover Raj Kushwah and hired three contract killers to get rid of him while the couple went to Cherrapunji after their wedding. The previous verdict was delivered by a Shillong Sessions Court in April. The state’s appeal against Sonam’s bail was dismissed by a bench led by Justice W. Diengdoh in the latest development. The court had heard arguments from both parties for more than ten days and reserved its decision on 10th June. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Dashalene R Kharbteng, discovered many procedural errors in the arrest and decided to release her on bail. Indian Constitution assures protection against arbitrary arrests under Article 22(1), and it was determined that the investigative agency had violated this fundamental right and had not properly disclosed the reasons for the action against her. The sessions court observed that Sonam was charged with murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS which actually relates to Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was wrongly featured in all paperwork related to the arrest, including the memo, justification checklist, inspection memo and case diary extract. It noted that the recurring inaccuracy could not be written off as a simple typographical mistake because it was repeated in other documents. The court highlighted that Sonam was not made aware that she was being taken into custody for murder in any of the documents and was not informed of the precise details of the offence at the time, which prejudiced her defence. It declared, “Infact, in all documents about Sonam Raghuvanshi, from the check list for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights of the arrested person, extract of case dairy, the sections referred to in all the documents is Sohra PS Case Number 7/2025 u/s 403(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) BNS.” “In none of the documents has the petitioner been intimated that she is arrested for the offence u/s 103(1) BNS. Even in the formats of the intimation of grounds of arrest, it is observed that specific facts constituting the offence have not been communicated to the accused person,” the court emphasised. Afterwards, Sonam was directed to provide a bail bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety of the same amount as bail was given on her fourth petition after earlier rejections as she came out of prison following approximately 10 months of incarceration. She was instructed to appear in court on all scheduled dates, not to escape or interfere with the evidence or witnesses and not to depart from the court’s jurisdiction without authorisation. A 790-page charge sheet had been filed in the case. However, the process progressed slowly, and only 4 of the 90 identified witnesses were examined. Likewise, constant delays were being caused by the prosecution side since February. The state’s submissions and the high court’s judgement On the other hand, Meghalaya Advocate General (AG) Amit Kumar challenged the judgement before the High Court. He contended that Sonam had legal counsel since the beginning and did not demonstrate that the error had actually caused any prejudice. He referenced her signatures on arrest records, multiple remand orders and the submission of three prior bail applications to support his statement that she was fully cognisant of her arrest in relation to the murder of her spouse. Kumar maintained that her fourth bail application had not a single sentence suggesting that the procedural oversight had in fact triggered any prejudice. Additionally, the state invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka versus Sri Darshan (2025) to support the assertion that such procedural flaws can be rectified and do not, by themselves, warrant approval of bail. However, Diengdoh sought clarification on why the same lapse was present in every document regarding the arrest. The court orally remarked that the arrest paperwork seemed to be created on a template and even incorporated an unrelated mention characterising the accused as a “deserter” from the armed forces, raising enquiries as to whether she had truly been told of the basis for her arrest. “It is evident that such preparation was made without any application of mind and nowhere is found any specific allegation or information as to what the actual charges against her are. If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency,” it chastised. Diengdoh also conveyed that the terms of the bail sufficiently addressed fears about Sonam’s potential to flee, adding that the law would take its own course in the event of a transgression. The bench eventually concluded not to overturn the lower court’s ruling as there were no grounds to apply its inherent authority to revoke the bail. The rationale behind the judgement The decision made by the Meghalaya High Court triggered a wave of anger on social media as people started to condemn the judiciary. “This is a mockery of the justice system. She’s roaming free just one year after killing her husband. Why are Indian laws so biased?” complained a popular social media account known as “Venom.” Sonam Raghuvanshi was granted bail by a Shillong court.The Meghalaya government challenged the bail.The Meghalaya High Court has now upheld the bail order.This is a mockery of the justice system. She's roaming free just one year after killing her husband.Why are Indian… pic.twitter.com/QPzNLdi5V9— ︎ ︎venom (@venom1s) June 29, 2026 “If this is justice, then the system has become a cruel joke. Indian laws keep proving one brutal truth: when the victim is a husband, outrage is temporary, bail is easy, and justice becomes optional,” wrote another person. The Meghalaya government challenged Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail.The Meghalaya High Court has now upheld it.Sonam Raghuvanshi, the main accused in the honeymoon murder case of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi, is roaming free just one year after his death.If this is justice, then… pic.twitter.com/PDzZjRMYad— ShoneeKapoor (@ShoneeKapoor) June 30, 2026 Emotions are running high and strong reactions are surfacing, especially from Raja’s family members. Their distress is valid, but it is important to recognise that courts are founded and function on statutory laws, empirical proofs and judicial precedents, rather than subjectivity or emotions. Courts are obligated to adhere to procedural realities and apply the law in an objective manner, detached from public sentiments. As a result, they rendered an impartial verdict in the ongoing case, which was centred on the grave breaches of procedure and independent of factors such as gender, caste, creed, status, background or any sympathy for the accused, irrespective of online claims. The bail does not equate to an exoneration of Sonam’s crime or the end of the trial, but it is a consequence of the extreme negligence of the authorities, as continuously outlined by both courts. The responsibility to build a strong case lies with the investigators seeking prosecution, which was not only deficient but also plagued by glaring blunders in this matter. The case is going to persist until Sonam is convicted or deemed innocent exclusively on the proof produced in the courts. However, the order points out the criticality of adhering to due process and meticulously handling a case, ensuring that all documentation is free from lapses that could lead to contrary outcomes such as bail for the perpetrator during the trial. The judiciary is mandated to operate within defined guidelines and a certain framework. Therefore, it cannot be held accountable for the missteps of the police or attacked for maintaining procedural integrity.