Shillong : The Meghalaya High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband, Indore businessman (L) Raja Raghuvanshi, holding that the police failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest as required by law.
Justice W Diengdoh, in a judgment delivered on June 29, dismissed Criminal Petition No. 47 of 2026, filed by the State of Meghalaya seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sonam in Session Case No. 21(T) of 2025.
The trial court had granted bail on April 27, 2026, after concluding that the mandatory requirement of informing the accused about the grounds of her arrest had not been properly complied with.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, also known as Bitti, a resident of Bhagatsingh Nagar in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was arrested on June 9, 2025, in connection with the sensational murder case.
Appearing for the State, Advocate General A Kumar, assisted by Special Public Prosecutor N Khera, argued that Sonam had previously filed three bail applications, all of which were rejected. The State contended that the issue of non-intimation of the grounds of arrest was raised only in her fourth bail application.
The prosecution further submitted that all procedural requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had been followed. It also informed the court that Sonam’s brother had been notified of her arrest and that six documents prepared on the day of her arrest bore her signature.
However, Justice Diengdoh observed that the document containing the grounds of arrest reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”, making the arrest procedure legally defective.
The High Court noted that the document failed to specify the actual allegations against the accused and instead contained several irrelevant and incorrect allegations, including statements suggesting that she was suspected of deserting the Armed Forces, committing offences outside India, and failing to report her residence as a released convict under Section 394 of the BNSS.
The court described these entries as “ridiculous”, observing that such errors clearly demonstrated a complete lack of application of mind by the investigating agency.
Justice Diengdoh held that these deficiencies gave the accused a strong basis to argue that no effective grounds of arrest had been communicated to her at the time of her arrest.
While clarifying that the ongoing trial, charge sheet, and framing of charges were not affected by the defect, the court ruled that the failure at the initial stage of arrest was significant enough to justify the grant of bail.
The judgment further stated that even if certain references to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were merely typographical errors, their repeated inclusion reflected serious negligence on the part of the authorities.
The High Court concluded that the mandatory safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 47(1) of the BNSS had been violated.
Finding no valid grounds to interfere with the trial court’s order, Justice Diengdoh dismissed the State’s petition and upheld the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi. The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.