MEGHALAYA<\/em>: The Meghalaya Government has moved the Meghalaya High Court<\/a><\/strong> against the Shillong Court order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi<\/strong>, accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon trip. The matter was heard before Justice W. Diengdoh.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The State argued that the lower court gave too much importance to technical mistakes<\/strong> in police paperwork despite the seriousness of the murder allegations. Bail was earlier granted after the Shillong Court found that police repeatedly mentioned the wrong BNS <\/a>section in arrest documents. <\/strong>Instead of Section 103(1) BNS<\/strong> for murder, documents mentioned Section 403(1) BNS.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Shillong Court had observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “…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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Appearing for the State, Advocate General Amit Kumar<\/strong> argued that Sonam was fully aware she was facing murder charges, as she had legal representation, signed arrest papers and participated in earlier bail proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The State also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.<\/em><\/strong>and argued that such procedural irregularities are curable defects unless actual prejudice is proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the hearing, Justice Diengdoh questioned why the same mistake appeared repeatedly in multiple documents. The Court also orally observed that the arrest forms<\/strong> appeared template-based<\/strong> and may not have been properly explained to the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Advocate General submitted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “There is no prejudice to the respondent at any point of time…In her fourth bail plea, it has been stated that I have not been informed of the grounds of arrest…your transit order, transit remand, your chargesheet, framing of chargesheet, every time you had the information that you have been arrested for the offence of Murder”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The State further argued that the accused had high chances of absconding<\/strong>. However, the Court observed that strict bail conditions were already in place. The matter will now be heard again on June 1<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to police, Raja and Sonam got married on May 12, 2025 and later travelled to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. Raja\u2019s body was later found in a gorge near Weisawdong Falls, while police alleged that the murder was pre-planned<\/strong> with the help of Sonam\u2019s alleged lover and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case has again raised public debate over how husbands in matrimonial-related crimes often become forgotten victims<\/strong> while criminal proceedings increasingly shift focus towards procedural defects<\/strong> instead of the death itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Section \/ Law<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Relevance In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 103(1) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for Murder<\/td> Police claimed accused was arrested for murder under this section<\/td><\/tr> Section 403(1) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Dishonest Misappropriation of Property<\/td> Wrong section allegedly mentioned repeatedly in arrest documents<\/td><\/tr> Section 238(a) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Related to disappearance or destruction of evidence<\/td> Mentioned in FIR and arrest papers<\/td><\/tr> Section 309(6) BNS<\/strong><\/td> Criminal conspiracy \/ common intention related provision<\/td> Mentioned as part of prosecution allegations<\/td><\/tr> Section 3(6) BNS<\/strong><\/td> General liability provision under BNS<\/td> Included in arrest documents<\/td><\/tr> Bail Jurisprudence<\/strong><\/td> Law governing grant or cancellation of bail<\/td> Central issue before Meghalaya High Court<\/td><\/tr> State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court ruling on procedural irregularities<\/td> State argued procedural mistakes alone cannot justify bail unless prejudice is proved<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n