An unpredictable development emerging on Friday has dramatised the infamous Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, which unfolded last year, sending shockwaves across the nation. Key accused and Raja’s wife, Sonam Raghuvanshi, who had been booked under charges of killing him, told the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the sensational case.

She filed an affidavit before the top court, opposing the Meghalaya government’s plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to her by the Meghalaya High Court (HC). She contended that the prosecution’s case rests solely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence rather than conclusive proof. 

Sonam maintained that mere allegations cannot be linked to guilt, urging the top court not to interfere with the High Court’s (HC) order dated June 29, 2026, which granted her bail. 

Details of the affidavit

In her affidavit, Sonam stated, “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated. The prosecution had constructed its case on assumption instead of credible evidence.” She also maintained that she had been wrongly accused and that the allegations against her would ultimately have to withstand judicial scrutiny during the trial. 

SC declines to cancel bail

Hearing the matter, the SC refused to send Sonam back to judicial custody, noting that she had already been released after the HC’s order. Although the bench expressed reservations over the reasoning adopted by the HC while granting bail, it noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage. 

The court reiterated the fundamental legal principle that every accused enjoys a presumption of innocence until he/she is proven guilty, adding that allegations against Sonam would be examined during the course of the trial. 

Furthermore, the SC bench remarked that if bail had been granted solely on the basis of a procedural defect in the arrest process, nothing in law prevented the investigating agency from effecting a fresh arrest after complying with the prescribed legal requirements. 

During the hearing, Sonam’s counsel argued that she had not been properly informed of the grounds of her arrest and had been denied meaningful legal assistance at the time. 

However, the SC questioned why these objections had not been raised before the lower courts during her earlier bail applications. 

Meghalaya Govt cites clerical error

Appearing on behalf of the Meghalaya Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta termed the case ‘shocking’ and a meticulously planned murder. He contended that the HC had granted bail to Sonam merely owing to a typographical mistake in the arrest memo. 

According to the state, the arrest documents inadvertently mentioned Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which pertains to murder. 

Mehta submitted that the error was purely clerical and had caused no prejudice to the accused. He added that Sonam’s bail applications had earlier been rejected on three occasions, with courts finding prima facie material against her.