Shillong: A court in Shillong, Meghalaya, has granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the May 2025 honeymoon murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, on the ground that the police failed to effectively communicate to her the grounds of her arrest, thereby causing prejudice to her defence.
The bail order dated April 27, 2026, was passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Judicial), Shillong, Dashalene R. Kharbteng, on Raghuvanshi’s fourth bail plea.
The case came to light after the couple, who had married on May 12, 2025, went missing on May 23 during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. They were last seen checking out of a homestay in Nongriat. Their rented scooter was subsequently found abandoned near Sohrarim. On June 2, 2025, Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was discovered in a deep gorge near the Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, who remained missing until June 8, 2025, was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi–Ghazipur main road and was subsequently arrested in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh.
The Meghalaya Police filed a chargesheet exceeding 700 pages, contending that the murder was premeditated and carried out by Sonam along with her alleged lover, Raj Kushwaha (21), and three alleged hitmen—Akash Singh Rajput, Vishal Singh Chauhan, and Anand Kurmi. Charges of murder have been framed by the Additional District Judge, and the matter is currently under trial.
The FIR against Raghuvanshi was registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6), and 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, the court found that all arrest-related documents—including the checklist for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights of the arrested person, and the case diary extract—erroneously referred to Section 403(1) BNS, which pertains to dishonest misappropriation of property, instead of Section 103(1) BNS, which pertains to murder.
The court rejected the prosecution’s contention that this was a mere clerical error, observing:
“Such an error cannot occur in all documents. In fact, in all documents pertaining to Sonam Raghuvanshi—from the checklist for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights of the arrested person, and extract of the case diary—the sections referred to are 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 have not been communicated to the accused person.”
The court further noted that the intimation of grounds of arrest format contained unticked checkboxes and that there was nothing on record to show that Raghuvanshi was represented by counsel when she was first produced before the court at Ghazipur on June 9, 2025.
“This shows that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting the grounds of arrest has not been effectively communicated to the petitioner in clear terms. Therefore, it can be said that prejudice has been caused to her as far as her defence is concerned,” the court said.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169, wherein it was held that even if statutory restrictions exist, an arrest is vitiated and bail can be granted when there is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest.
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the plea regarding non-intimation of grounds of arrest was belated since charges had already been framed, and that the signing of the arrest memo by the accused and witnesses created a sufficient presumption that she had been informed of the grounds.
The court rejected these contentions and granted bail to Raghuvanshi upon her executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with other conditions. She had been in custody for over 10 months at the time of the order.
Case Details
- Court: Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Judicial), Shillong, Meghalaya
- Case: Sonam Raghuvanshi Bail Plea; Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025
- Judge: Dashalene R. Kharbteng, Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Judicial), Shillong
- Date of Order: April 27, 2026
- Accused: Sonam Raghuvanshi; co-accused Raj Kushwaha, Akash Singh Rajput, Vishal Singh Chauhan, Anand Kurmi
