The Shillong court granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi after finding that the grounds of arrest were not effectively communicated to her, as the arrest documents referred to Section 403(1) BNS instead of Section 103(1) BNS.
A court in Shillong has granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case.
Addl. DC (Judicial), Shillong, Dashalene R. Kharbteng allowed her fourth bail plea. The court found that the police did not effectively communicate the grounds of arrest to her.
The court also noted that several arrest documents mentioned the wrong penal provision. It held that this caused prejudice to the defence.
The case concerns the death of Raja Raghuvanshi during a honeymoon trip in Meghalaya in May 2025.
Police arrested Sonam Raghuvanshi in June 2025 in connection with Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025.
The FIR referred to Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The court noted that the arrest memo and other police documents mentioned Section 403(1) BNS.
Section 403(1) deals with dishonest misappropriation of property.
However, the FIR referred to Section 103(1) BNS, which deals with murder.
The court found the same error in several arrest-related documents.
Sonam Raghuvanshi’s counsel argued that the police failed to communicate the grounds of arrest.
The defence said this violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
Counsel also submitted that the trial had remained halted for more than two months. The defence argued that Sonam could not face indefinite pre-conviction detention for no fault of hers.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea.
It argued that Sonam raised the objection at a belated stage, after framing of charges.
The prosecution also said Sonam and the witnesses had signed the arrest memo and intimation documents. It argued that the court could presume that police had informed her about the grounds of arrest.
The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the wrong section was only a clerical error.
It said such an error could not appear in all documents by accident.
The court noted that the checklist for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights, and case diary extract all mentioned Section 403(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) BNS.
The court found that none of the arrest documents informed Sonam Raghuvanshi that police had arrested her for an offence under Section 103(1) BNS.
It also observed that the intimation formats did not mention the specific facts forming the alleged offence.
The Shillong court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that failure to comply with Article 22(1) violates the fundamental rights of an accused and vitiates the arrest.
The Supreme Court also held that courts must order release when violation of Article 22(1) is established.
The court also noted that the record did not show that Sonam had legal representation when authorities first produced her before the court at Ghazipur on June 9, 2025.
The court said she could have raised the plea regarding non-intimation of grounds of arrest at that stage if she had counsel.
The court found that the police did not effectively communicate the charges to Sonam Raghuvanshi.
It also held that the defective communication caused prejudice to her defence.
The court granted her bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000.
Reports stated that the court directed Sonam Raghuvanshi to remain in Shillong and attend court hearings. The bail bond also required a surety of the same amount.
