SHILLONG, JUN 29: 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 and Indore businessman (L) Raja Raghuvanshi, after finding that the police failed to properly intimate the grounds of her arrest.
In his judgment passed on Monday (June 29), Justice W Diengdoh dismissed Crl.Petn. No. 47 of 2026 filed by the State of Meghalaya seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in Session Case No. 21(T) of 2025.
The bail had been allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) on April 27, 2026, primarily on the ground that the “grounds of arrest” were not intimated to her.
Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti, a resident of Bhagatsingh Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was arrested on June 9, 2025, in connection with the murder case.
Appearing for the State, Advocate General A Kumar, along with Special PP N Khera and others, contended that the accused had earlier moved three bail applications which were rejected, and that the ground of non-intimation was raised only in the fourth application.
The AG argued that all procedural requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS had been met, adding that the accused’s brother was informed of her arrest and six contemporaneous documents prepared on the day of arrest bore her signature.
Justice Diengdoh, however, held that the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind” and struck at the root of the arrest process.
“It is evident that such preparation was made without any application of mind, oblivious to the factum of the case against the accused/respondent and nowhere is found any specific allegation or information as to what are the actual charges against her,” the Court observed.
The judgment noted that some entries in the grounds of arrest appeared “ridiculous,” including allegations that “You are suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union,” “You are suspected of being involved in an offence committed outside India,” and “You, being a released convict, failed to notify your residence… as required under Section 394 BNSS.”
“If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency,” the Court said, adding that this led to the conclusion that “the arrestee does have a strong case to contend that no such effective grounds have ever been intimated to her at the initial stage of her arrest.”
While clarifying that the trial itself was not vitiated and that the charge sheet and framing of charges were not in question, the Court held that the defect at the inception was significant.
“The foundational basis for building up a case against the accused/respondent being found lacking, all other attempts to rectify the subsequent actions or process will have to fail,” Justice Diengdoh said.
He added that even if references to Section 403(1) BNS were typographical errors, their repeated appearance “reflects non-application of mind by the authorities concerned, which is not fitting an action on their part.”
The Court said the provision of Article 22(1) read with Section 47(1) BNSS had “indeed been violated.”
Concluding that there was “no initial effective intimation of the grounds of arrest,” the High Court held that the trial court was “justified” in releasing the accused on bail on that count.
“Accordingly, there are no materials found herein to allow this Court to exercise its inherent power to upset the impugned order, the prayer made in this petition is hereby rejected,” the judgment said.
The petition was disposed of with no costs.
