New Delhi, July 24 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted last month to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her husband while on their honeymoon in Meghalaya, observing that her continued freedom will hinder the ongoing trial. She has been directed to surrender in three weeks and apply for bail if the trial fails to conclude in six months. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale passed the order on an appeal filed by the Meghalaya police challenging the June 29 order of the Meghalaya high court granting bail on the ground that she was not supplied with the grounds of arrest on June 9, 2025 when the police took her into custody from Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh. Senior advocate Ardhendumauli Prasad appearing for Raghuvanshi requested for time to surrender as she hails from Indore in Madhya Pradesh and is currently in Shillong as required by the conditional bail granted. The court allowed her three weeks to surrender and said, "In the event of the trial not proceeding and concluding in six months, the respondent will be at liberty to move fresh application for bail in which case, neither the present order nor earlier orders will come in her way." On May 23 last year Raghuvanshi travelled with her husband Raj Raghuvanshi to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. His body was discovered lying in a gorge on June 2. The high court found fault with the state police for not communicating the grounds of arrest and showing a total "non-application of judicious mind" as the arrest memo mentioned section 403 instead of section 103 (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The state submitted to the top court that it was only a typographical error". The high court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra, decided on November 6, 2025 which held supply of grounds of arrest to the accused even for offences under the Indian Penal Code/BNS to be mandatory. Raghuvanshi was arrested on June 9, 2025 and sought the benefit under this judgment claiming that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to her. However, the state argued that being a "judge-made law" the SC judgment will apply prospectively. Considering the allegations, the Supreme Court bench said, "On facts we find, the respondent is not entitled for bail."...