![\"Honeymoon](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132574025,imgsize-107163,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/raja-raghuvanshi39s-brother-in-law-claims-sonam-lied-from-the-start.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025. The apex court directed her to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.\u201cWe are inclined to observe that continued enlargement on bail of the respondent (Sonam Raghuvanshi) at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial. In such a matter we are inclined to set-aside the bail order… The respondent has been given two weeks to surrender. In the event of trial not concluding within six months the respondent can submit an application seeking bail,\u201d the Court observed, as quoted by news agency ANI.The order came after the Meghalaya government challenged the Meghalaya high court’s decision to grant Sonam bail. The high court had upheld the trial court’s order, holding that she was entitled to bail because the mandatory “grounds of arrest” had not been furnished to her at the time of arrest.During an earlier hearing, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale had offered Sonam two options: Either surrender to facilitate the examination of public witnesses while the appeal against her bail was pending, or contest the Meghalaya government’s appeal on merits. “You (Sonam’s counsel) have two options. Either we will pass an order on merits or we will ask you to surrender, let the public witnesses question you – meanwhile we will decide the matter on merits (on bail),” the bench had observed. The judges had also advised her counsel that “surrender” would be the better course.Opposing the bail, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that Sonam had voluntarily surrendered before the police and therefore could not later claim that the grounds of arrest had not been provided. He also maintained that the error in the arrest memo was merely typographical, with Section 403(1) being mentioned instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with murder.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n