By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, May 7: The state government on Thursday defended the handling of the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case by the police, maintaining that the High Court of Meghalaya will now decide on the bail granted to the prime accused, Sonam Raghuvanshi.
Deputy Chief Minister in charge of Home (Police), Prestone Tynsong, said the government has challenged the lower court’s order granting bail and would wait for the high court’s decision.
He said it would not be appropriate to comment further on the matter since the state had appealed before the higher court against the bail order passed by the lower court. He added that the government would wait to see what the high court decides.
Defending the role of the police, Tynsong said the state police, including the Special Investigation Team (SIT), tried their best and were adequately equipped to investigate such a case. He stated that procedures, rules, and regulations have to be followed while dealing with criminal cases.
He asserted that there were no lapses on the part of the police.
The Deputy Chief Minister also noted that judicial decisions can vary from one court to another, and reiterated that the matter would ultimately be decided by the court.
The court of Additional District Commissioner (Judicial) D.R. Kharbteng granted bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi a few days ago, citing serious procedural lapses in police documentation during her arrest.
Sonam remanied in judicial custody for more than ten months after she was arrested in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur on June 9, 2025. She is facing trial in connection with a case registered at Sohra Police Station following the recovery of Raja’s body.
The prosecution filed both the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet, while four prosecution witnesses had been examined before the trial was halted over procedural concerns.
During the hearing of her fourth bail application, defence counsel Sudeep Rana argued that the accused had not been properly informed about the grounds of her arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The court, after examining the arrest-related documents, found that the “Intimation of Grounds of Arrest” consisted of a standard printed checklist format in which none of the relevant boxes specifying the actual accusations had been marked.
The court also noted that several police documents, including the arrest memo, justification of arrest checklist, inspection memo, and case diary extracts, repeatedly mentioned incorrect legal provisions by citing Section 403(1) instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to the murder charge.
Observing that the documents failed to clearly communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused, the court held that the vague and defective format did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity.
