Honeymoon Murder Case | State Moves Meghalaya HC Against Shillong Court Order Granting Bail To Sonam Raghuwanshi

The State of Meghalaya has moved the Meghalaya High Court, challenging the Shillong Court's April order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the chilling May 2025 'honeymoon murder' of her husband, Raja Raghuwanshi.

It may be noted that Raghuwanshi was granted the relief by the Addl. DC (Judicial), Shillong, primarily on the grounds that the police had failed to effectively communicate to her the grounds of her arrest, which caused prejudice to her defence.

Essentially, the Court found that in all the documents pertaining to the petitioner, including the checklist for justification of arrest and the case diary extract, the police had erroneously referred to Section 403(1) BNS instead of Section 103(1) BNS (Punishment for Murder).

Shillong Court had noted that in none of the documents was the petitioner intimated that she was actually being arrested for the much graver offence under Section 103(1) BNS. The Court further rejected the contention that it was a clerical error.

"...such error cannot occur in all documents. Infact, in all documents pertaining to Sonam Raghuvanshi, from the check list for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights of the arrested person, extract of case dairy, the sections referred to in all the documents is Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025 u/s 403(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) BNS. In none of the documents has the petitioner been intimated that she is arrested for the offence u/s 103(1) BNS. Even in the formats of the intimation of grounds of arrest it is observed that specific facts constituting the offence has not been communicated to the accused person," the Court had observed.

Now, in its plea challenging the grant of bail to Raghuwanshi, the State of Meghalaya has submitted that there was not a single line in Raghuwanshi's Fourth Bail application that indicated any actual prejudice had been caused by the procedural error.

Appearing for the State before a bench of Justice W Diengdoh, Advocate General, Senior Advocate Amit Kumar argued that it was an admitted position that a typographical error (mentioning Section 403 instead of 103 BNS) occurred in the arrest documents.

AG Kumar, however, maintained that Raghuwanshi was fully aware of the serious charges against her, including murder, as evidenced by her signature on arrest memos and the remand orders.

AG Kumar further relied on the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801, wherein it was held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity, it is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail.

During the hearing on May 5, Justice W. Diengdoh orally questioned the AG as to why the same typographical error recurred multiple times in the documents, a point also noted by the Shillong Court.

To this, AG Kumar responded by submitting that the remand order, in which the magistrate confirmed that the accused was verbally informed of the reasons for her arrest

Justice Deingdoh also orally remarked that the arrest documentation is template-based, which, prima facie, suggested it might not have been properly explained to the accused. He also observed that one section of the form referred to the accused as a 'deserter' from the armed forces, which was irrelevant to the case.

Accepting the typographical errors, AG Kumar stressed that the accused was fully aware of the nature of the accusations against her, as she was represented by legal counsel from the start, had signed the arrest memos and had actively participated in filing 3 previous bail applications.

"There is no prejudice to the respondent at any point of time...In her fourth bail plea, it has been stated that I have not been informed of the grounds of arrest...your transit order, transit remand, your chargesheet, framing of chargesheet, every time you had the information that you have been arrested for the offence of Murder", AG Kumar submitted.

Lastly, he argued that the accused's chances of absconding are very high. In response, Justice Deingdoh said that the bail conditions are very clear, and if she absconds, the law will take its own course.

Against this backdrop, the Court issued notice to the Respondent-accused. The matter will be heard next on June 1. 

Case background

The crime came to light after the couple, who had tied the knot on May 12, 2025, went missing on May 23, while on their honeymoon in Meghalaya. They were last seen checking out of a homestay in Nongriat.

A few days later, their rented scooter was found abandoned near Sohrarim. Then, on June 2, around 10 days after their disappearance, Raja's body was discovered in a deep gorge near the Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills.

His wife, Accused-Raghuwanshi, who was missing till June 8, was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi-Ghazipur main road. Later, the Meghalaya police stated that Sonam, along with 21-year-old Raj Kushwaha, was being considered one of the prime suspects in the murder of her husband.

State Police have already filed a 700+ page chargesheet in the matter, claiming that murder was premeditated by Sonam and her alleged lover, Kushwaha. It also names three allged hitmen: Akash Singh Rajput, Vishal Singh Chauhan and Anand Kurmi. Charges of Murder have also been framed by an Additional District Judge.