New Delhi, July 4 -- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to send Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya last year, back to jail for now, even as it expressed serious reservations over the Meghalaya high court order granting her bail. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu admitted the Meghalaya government's appeal challenging the June 29 high court judgment and issued notice to Raghuvanshi, but declined to stay the bail order after learning that she had already been released from custody. "Prima facie, we would have stayed the order of bail but since she has already been released, we would not want to intervene," observed the bench, posting the matter for hearing on July 9. The court indicated that while it was not impressed by the reasoning adopted by the high court, it was equally conscious of the consequences of sending an accused back to prison after release on bail. "We are conscious that howsoever grave the alleged offence is, there is a presumption of innocence," stated the bench, adding that it would consider passing appropriate orders on expediting the trial after Raghuvanshi files her response. The case relates to the murder of 29-year-old Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who travelled to Meghalaya with Sonam after their marriage in May 2025. They went missing after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23. Raja's body was later recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls in Sohra, while Sonam was traced days later in Uttar Pradesh. On Friday, the Meghalaya police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the case involved a "shocking" and "pre-meditated" murder and that the high court had erred in granting bail on what was essentially a typographical error in the arrest documents. He told the bench Raghuvanshi's bail had been rejected on three occasions, with courts recording prima facie material pointing to her role in the murder. Mehta contended that the high court granted bail solely because arrest-related documents mistakenly referred to Section 403 of the BNS instead of Section 103....