'Honeymoon Murder' Case | Shillong Court Grants Bail To Sonam Raghuvanshi Over Ineffective Intimation Of Arrest Grounds

A court in Meghalaya's Shillong yesterday GRANTED BAIL to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is the prime suspect in the May 2025 Meghalaya 'honeymoon murder' of her husband (Raja Raghuvanshi), on the grounds that the police had failed to effectively communicate to her the grounds of her arrest, which caused prejudice to her defence.

Addl. DC (Judicial), Shillong, Dashalene R Kharbteng, granted her bail on her fourth bail plea, noting that the "Intimation of Grounds of Arrest" format presented to her contained unticked checkboxes and it also referred to an incorrect penal section of BNS.

The court also took into account that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was represented by a counsel at the time when she was first produced before the court at Ghazipur (on June 9, 2025), whereby this plea (non-intimation of grounds of arrest) could have been raised by her.

Thus, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169, the Shillong Court granted her bail upon her executing a personal bond of Rs. 50K along with other conditions.

Our readers may note that in Vihaan Kumar, the Top Court had held that even if statutory restrictions exist, arrest gets vitiated and bail can be granted when there is a violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates informing an arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner (Sonam) has been languishing in jail for over 10 months after she was arrested from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, in June 2025 in connection with her husband's murder case.

It may be noted that while the FIR was registered against her under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the BNS, the arrest memo and all other police documents given to her erroneously referred to Section 403(1) [Dishonest misappropriation of property] instead of Section 103(1) [MURDER].

Arguments

Seeking bail in the case, her counsel argued that the trial has been halted for more than 2 months and that too without her fault. It was contended that she cannot be subjected to pre-conviction detention for an indefinite period without a trial.

Importantly, her counsel argued that at the time of her arrest, the Police Authorities did not comply with the mandatory requirement to provide her with the grounds of arrest as mandated by law, and thus violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the plea regarding the non-intimation of the grounds of arrest was belated, since charges had already been framed. It was contended that this plea ought to have been raised at the very first instance and not now.

It was also argued that the arrest memo and intimation of grounds of arrest were duly signed by her and the witnesses and there was sufficient presumption that the accused was informed of the grounds of arrest.

It was further added that the mere failure to tick the check boxes is a mere procedural irregularity, especially when charges have already been framed against her.

Court's observations

Considering the arguments from both sides, the Court found that in all documents pertaining to the petitioner, including the checklist for justification of arrest as well as the case diary extract, the police had erroneously referred to Section 403(1) BNS.

The Court 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 observed.

Against this backdrop, finding that the charges against her had not been communicated to her effectively and a prejudice had been caused to her, the Court thought it appropriate to grant her bail.

Case background

The crime came to light after the couple, who had tied the knot on May 12, 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, 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.