By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, April 28: In a significant order highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards, the court of Additional District Commissioner (Judicial) D.R. Kharbteng granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in a murder case, primarily due to serious lapses in the police paperwork at the time of her arrest.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a 25-year-old businesswoman from Indore, had been in judicial custody for more than ten months after her arrest on June 9, 2025, from Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh. She is facing trial in the case registered at Sohra Police Station following the recovery of the body of Raja Raghuvanshi. The prosecution had already filed the chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet, and four prosecution witnesses had been examined before the trial was halted due to procedural issues.
During the hearing of her fourth bail application, counsel for the accused, Sudeep Rana argued that Sonam was never properly informed of the grounds of her arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The court’s scrutiny of the arrest documents revealed that the “Intimation of Grounds of Arrest” was a standard printed format containing a checklist of possible accusations.
Crucially, none of the checkboxes indicating the specific charges against her had been ticked. Multiple police documents, including the arrest memo, justification of arrest checklist, inspection memo, and case diary extracts, consistently referred to incorrect sections of law, citing Section 403(1) instead of the actual Section 103(1) BNS related to the murder case.
The Additional DC (Judicial) observed that the documents failed to communicate sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the accused in a clear and effective manner. The court noted that such a vague and defective format did not meet the constitutional requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments as well as a recent Meghalaya High Court ruling, the court held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent remands.
The judge emphasised that the filing of a chargesheet or the commencement of trial does not cure the initial constitutional violation. The court further observed that unlike cases where substantial compliance was found, the consistent defects in Sonam’s arrest documents demonstrated that she had not been effectively informed of the specific charges, causing prejudice to her defense.
The prosecution contended that the plea was belated and that any lapses were mere procedural irregularities without causing prejudice. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that there was no indication that Sonam was represented by counsel when first produced before the magistrate in Ghazipur, and the defects in the paperwork were too glaring to be dismissed as clerical errors.
Concluding that Sonam’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution had been violated due to the faulty arrest formalities, the court directed her release on bail.
Legal observers note that the order underscores the judiciary’s strict insistence on upholding constitutional safeguards in matters of personal liberty, even in serious criminal cases. The judgment serves as a reminder to investigating agencies about the critical importance of meticulous documentation while effecting arrests.
