Honeymoon Murder Case | Meghalaya High Court Upholds Shillong Court Order Granting Bail To Sonam Raghuwanshi

Essentially, the Court had 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.

In its final judgment, the High Court pointed out that the template-based documentation used by the Police while arresting Raghuwanshi highlighted a severe lack of diligence. Taking into account the arrest checklist, Justice Diengdoh observed:

"It is evident that such preparation was made without any application of mind, oblivious to the factum of the case against the accused/respondent and nowhere is found any specific allegation or information as to what are the actual charges against her."

The Court noted that several fields left on the template were entirely absurd in the context of the case. It noted thus:

"Some of the entries/contents appears to be ridiculous, for example, “You are suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union” and another which reads as “You are suspected of being involved in an offence committed outside India” and yet another entry which reads as “You, being a released convict, failed to notify your residence and any change of, or absence from, such residence after release, as required under Section 394 BNSS and thus, violated the rules framed thereunder by the State Government."

Furthermore, the Court noted that even if citing a non-existent "Section 403(1) BNS" instead of Section 103(1) was a typographical slip, its recurrence across multiple core documents cannot be swept away.

The judge observed: "The foundational basis for building up a case against the accused/respondent being found lacking, all other attempts to rectify the subsequent actions or process will have to fail."

Ultimately, pointing out that constitutional rights under Article 22(1) were completely bypassed in the present case, the Court opined that the manner of intimation of the grounds of arrest reflects a total non-application of a judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency, which strikes at the root of the process of arrest of an accused person.

Therefore, the provision of Article 22(1) read with Section 47(1) BNSS have indeed been violated, the bench concluded while upholding the bail order.

State's arguments

Appearing for the State, Advocate General, Senior Advocate Amit Kumar had submitted that there was not a single line in Raghuwanshi's Fourth Bail application indicating that any actual prejudice had been caused by the procedural error.

He had also 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 had 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 had 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 had 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 remarked orally that the arrest documentation is template-based, which, prima facie, suggested it might not have been properly explained to the accused.

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

Advocate S Thapa, assisted by Advocate Sudeep Rana, appeared for Sonam.

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.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment