SHILLONG, APR 28: Prime accused Sonam Raghuvanshi, arrested in connection with the murder of her husband and Indore businessman (L) Raja Raghuvanshi, was granted bail by a local court here on Tuesday after it found that grounds of arrest had not been effectively communicated to her.

Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) DR Kharbteng, while allowing Bail Application, held that the lapse violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The court noted that while the FIR in Sohra PS Case No. 7/2025 was registered under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the documents furnished to the accused at the time of arrest cited a different section.

“Perused Annexure 8 which is a prepared format under the heading ‘Intimation of Grounds of Arrest’… none of the check boxes have been ticked to indicate the said charges against the petitioner,” the order said.

“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 court observed, “A bare perusal of the Intimation of Grounds of arrest would indicate that the Petitioner was not informed about the offence u/s 103(1) BNS. Though it has been argued that this is a clerical error, however such error cannot occur in all documents.”

It added that the checklist for justification of arrest, memo of arrest, inspection memo, intimation of rights, and case diary extract all referred to Section 403(1) instead of 103(1). “In none of the documents has the petitioner been intimated that she is arrested for the offence u/s 103(1) BNS,” the order stated.

Distinguishing the case from precedent, the court said, “In Darshan’s case (supra), 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. to satisfy the Magistrate about arrest intimation was duly fulfilled.”

“In view thereof, Darshan’s case would have no application to the facts of the instant case,” the court held.

On the impact of the omission, the order noted, “This shows that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds of arrest, has not been effectively communicated to the petitioner herein in clear terms. Therefore, it can be said that prejudice has been caused to her as far as her defense is concerned.”

The court also recorded 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, whereby this plea could have been raised by her.”

Relying on Vihaan Kumar and the Meghalaya High Court’s judgment in Labius Arengh, the court concluded, “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,” the order said.

Sonam Raghuvanshi has been directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of like amount.

She has been barred from absconding or tampering with evidence, must attend court on every date fixed, and cannot leave the court’s jurisdiction without permission.

Sonam Raghuvanshi was arrested on June 9, 2025, from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, after an FIR was lodged by Vipin Raghuvanshi at Sohra Police Station following the recovery of Raja Raghuvanshi’s body during a search operation.

She has been in custody at the District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong, for over 10 months.

Charges were framed against her on October 28, 2025, under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/309(6)/3(6) BNS, to which she pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution has examined four of 90 listed witnesses so far.

A supplementary chargesheet filed on February 10, 2026, added Shilom James as a co-accused and sought discharge of Balla Ahirwal and Lokendra Tomar. Sections 25(1)(A)/35 of the Arms Act were also added against Sonam, Raj Singh Kushwaha and Vishal Singh Chauhan.

“Application is allowed and disposed off,” the court said in its order passed on April 27.