SHILLONG, APR 28: A Shillong court has granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband, Indore businessman (L) Raja Raghuvanshi at Sohra, after ruling that police failed to properly communicate the grounds of her arrest.
In her order passed on Monday (April 27), while disposing of the bail application, the court of Additional DC (Judicial) DR Kharbteng said the procedural lapse breached the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) and prejudiced the accused’s defence.
The court pointed to glaring discrepancies in the arrest paperwork.
While the FIR in Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025 was registered under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) of the BNS, the “Intimation of Grounds of Arrest” served to Sonam cited Section 403(1) instead of 103(1).
“Perused Annexure 8… In the said format presented to the petitioner, none of the check boxes have been ticked to indicate the said charges against the petitioner,” the order read.
“Even the sections of law referred to therein is Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025 u/s 403(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) BNS.”
The judge rejected the prosecution’s argument of a clerical error, noting the same mistake appeared across multiple documents.
“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 diary, the sections referred to in all the documents is… u/s 403(1),” the court said.
“A bare perusal… would indicate that the Petitioner was not informed about the offence u/s 103(1) BNS,” it added.
“Specific facts constituting the offence has not been communicated to the accused person.”
The court distinguished the present case from Darshan’s case, where “the respondents were informed of the grounds of arrest orally at the time of arrest and served written grounds immediately thereafter… Thus the requirement under Section 50A Cr. P.C… was duly fulfilled.”
“In view thereof, Darshan’s case would have no application to the facts of the instant case,” the order stated.
The court found that “sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds of arrest, has not been effectively communicated to the petitioner herein in clear terms,” adding that “prejudice has been caused to her as far as her defense is concerned.”
It also noted that “there is 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.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Vihaan Kumar and the Meghalaya High Court ruling in Labius Arengh, the court held, “Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is convinced that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of not having been effectively communicated the grounds of arrest upon her arrest.”
“Accordingly… the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail,” it ordered.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, who has spent over 10 months in the District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong since her arrest on June 9, 2025, from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, will be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
“The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on bial on the following conditions: that she shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or witnesses; that she shall attend court on every date fixed; that she shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court, except with due permission; and that she shall execute a personal bond of Rs 50,000 only with two surety of like amount to the satisfaction of this court,” the order stated.
The case stems from an FIR lodged by Vipin Raghuvanshi on June 3, 2025, after his brother Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was found during a police search.
Charges were framed against Sonam on October 28, 2025, under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) BNS. She pleaded not guilty.
The trial is underway with four of 90 prosecution witnesses examined so far.
A supplementary chargesheet filed on February 10, 2026, named Shilom James as a co-accused and added Arms Act charges against Sonam and two others, while seeking discharge of Balla Ahirwal and Lokendra Tomar.
“Application is allowed and disposed off,” the order concluded.
 Raja Raghuvanshi at Sohra, after ruling that police failed to properly communicate the grounds of her arrest.){kind=link}