Justice W. Diengdoh of the Meghalaya High Court on Monday dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the April 2026 order of a Shillong court granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the main accused in the alleged murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in May 2025.

High Court Upholds Bail:

The High Court had reserved its judgment on June 10 after hearing arguments for more than ten days. While dismissing the State’s appeal, the Court said that a detailed order explaining its reasons would be issued later.

Why Bail Was Granted:

The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Judicial), Shillong, had granted bail mainly because the police did not properly inform Sonam Raghuvanshi about the grounds of her arrest. The Shillong court held that this affected her right to defend herself.

The Shillong court found that every document related to Sonam Raghuvanshi’s arrest—including the checklist for justification of arrest and the case diary extract—incorrectly mentioned Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1) BNS, which deals with the offence of murder.

The court also noted that she was never informed that she had been arrested for the much more serious offence under Section 103(1) BNS.

Shillong Court’s Observation

The Shillong court observed:

“…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.”

State’s Arguments:

The State challenged this bail order before the High Court.

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Amit Kumar, assisted by Senior Counsel, argued that the wrong section mentioned in the arrest documents was only a typing mistake and did not cause any real prejudice to Sonam Raghuvanshi.

He pointed out that Sonam had signed the arrest memos and remand orders, had a lawyer from an early stage of the case, and had also filed earlier bail applications. According to him, these facts showed that she was aware of the allegations against her.

The Advocate General also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 801. He argued that the Supreme Court had held that such mistakes are only curable irregularities unless the accused can show that they actually caused prejudice. Therefore, such mistakes do not automatically entitle an accused person to bail.

High Court’s Questions:

During the hearing, Justice Diengdoh questioned the Advocate General about why the same mistake appeared in several different documents, as pointed out by the Shillong court. The Judge also observed that the use of template-based arrest forms suggested that the contents of the forms may not have been properly explained to the accused. He further pointed out that one of the forms even contained an irrelevant reference describing the accused as a “deserter” from the armed forces.

Absconding Concern:

The Advocate General argued that Sonam was fully aware of the serious allegations against her and warned that she posed a high risk of absconding if released on bail. In response, Justice Diengdoh observed that strict bail conditions had already been imposed and that legal consequences would follow if she tried to flee.

How the Case Began:

The case relates to the disappearance of newly married couple Raja and Sonam Raghuvanshi. They got married on May 12, 2025, and were last seen leaving a homestay in Nongriat on May 23 while on their honeymoon.

Their rented scooter was later found abandoned near Sohrarim. On June 2, Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep gorge near Weisawdong Falls.

Sonam remained missing until June 8, when she was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi–Ghazipur road. The Meghalaya Police have treated her as the main accused along with 21-year-old Raj Kushwaha.

The Meghalaya Police have filed a chargesheet of more than 700 pages alleging that the murder was pre-planned by Sonam and her alleged companion.

Case Details: STATE OF MEGHALAYA VS. SONAM RAGUVANSHI@BITTI@BITTU