Why Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Compromised Even in High-Profile Criminal Cases

The Meghalaya High Court’s decision to uphold the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, one of the prime accused in the widely publicised “honeymoon murder” case, has once again highlighted an important constitutional principle: the seriousness of an allegation cannot dilute the procedural safeguards guaranteed to every accused person.

The case attracted nationwide attention because of its sensational facts. However, the High Court’s judgment was not an assessment of the accused’s guilt or innocence. Instead, it focused on a far more fundamental issue—whether the police complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements governing arrest.

The decision serves as an important reminder that in a constitutional democracy, due process is not a mere technicality but the very foundation of criminal justice.

The Background of the Case

The case concerns the alleged murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam Raghuvanshi, shortly after their marriage in May 2025. Following their disappearance during the honeymoon, Raja’s body was later recovered from a gorge in East Khasi Hills.

Subsequently, Sonam Raghuvanshi and several others were arrested after the investigating agency alleged that the murder had been carefully planned.

The police have since filed an extensive charge sheet claiming that the murder was premeditated.

However, despite the gravity of these allegations, the present proceedings before the High Court concerned only one issue: whether the arrest itself complied with constitutional safeguards.

Why Was Bail Granted?

The Shillong Trial Court had granted bail after finding serious defects in the arrest procedure adopted by the investigating agency.

The most significant defect was that almost every arrest-related document referred to Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103(1), which prescribes punishment for murder.

The prosecution argued that this was merely a typographical error.

The courts, however, were not convinced.

The repeated appearance of the same incorrect provision across multiple documents—including:

• the arrest memo,
• the arrest checklist,
• inspection memo,
• case diary extracts, and
• communication of rights to the accused,

demonstrated something far more serious than a simple clerical mistake.

According to the High Court, the documents reflected complete non-application of mind during the arrest process.

Article 22(1): A Constitutional Safeguard

One of the strongest observations made by the High Court relates to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that every arrested person has the right to be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of arrest.

This safeguard is not procedural formality.

It exists to ensure that an accused person:

• understands why they have been arrested;
• can effectively consult legal counsel;
• prepares an appropriate legal defence; and
• challenges any unlawful detention.

The Court held that merely handing over template-based documents containing incorrect legal provisions cannot satisfy this constitutional requirement.

Since the accused was not properly informed of the actual offence for which she was arrested, the Court concluded that Article 22(1) and Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had been violated.

The Problem with Template-Based Arrest Documentation

An unusual aspect of the judgment was the Court’s criticism of the police’s use of generic arrest templates.

Justice W. Diengdoh observed that several portions of the arrest checklist contained completely irrelevant allegations.

Among them were statements suggesting that the accused was:

• a deserter from the Armed Forces;
• involved in offences committed outside India; and
• a released convict who had failed to notify authorities of her residence.

None of these allegations had any connection whatsoever with the honeymoon murder case.

The Court remarked that such entries clearly demonstrated that the forms had been prepared mechanically without any genuine application of mind.

This observation carries significance beyond the present case.

It raises broader concerns regarding the quality of investigation and documentation prepared during criminal investigations.

Bail Does Not Mean Acquittal

The judgment also clarifies an important misconception often seen in public discourse.

Granting bail does not amount to declaring an accused innocent.

Nor does it weaken the prosecution’s case.

The High Court repeatedly emphasised that its decision was confined solely to the legality of the arrest process.

The criminal trial will continue independently, and the prosecution remains free to establish its allegations through evidence during trial.

The bail order merely ensures that constitutional safeguards remain meaningful while the judicial process unfolds.

The State’s Arguments

The State of Meghalaya argued that:

• the incorrect legal provision was merely a typographical mistake;
• the accused fully understood that she was facing murder charges;
• she had legal representation from the very beginning;
• she had participated in multiple bail proceedings; and
• therefore, no actual prejudice had been caused.

The State also relied upon recent Supreme Court precedent suggesting that procedural irregularities which do not cause prejudice may be curable.

However, the High Court distinguished the present facts.

It held that where the foundational requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest itself is absent, the defect cannot simply be dismissed as a minor clerical error.

Due Process Strengthens Criminal Justice

The judgment reinforces an important constitutional principle.

The criminal justice system derives its legitimacy not from securing convictions at any cost but from ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly, transparently and in accordance with law.

Even individuals accused of the most serious offences remain entitled to constitutional protections.

If procedural safeguards are ignored in high-profile cases because public opinion demands swift punishment, the rule of law itself becomes vulnerable.

Constitutional rights exist precisely to prevent arbitrary exercise of State power.

Lessons for Investigating Agencies

The decision carries valuable lessons for police authorities across the country.

Investigating officers must ensure:

• careful preparation of arrest documents;
• accurate communication of legal provisions;
• proper recording of grounds of arrest;
• compliance with Article 22(1);
• strict adherence to BNSS procedures; and
• meaningful explanation of the allegations to the accused.

Mechanical preparation of forms using standard templates cannot substitute constitutional compliance.

The arrest process itself must reflect fairness, diligence and accountability.

Conclusion

The Meghalaya High Court’s judgment in the Sonam Raghuvanshi bail case is not a verdict on the alleged honeymoon murder.

Rather, it is a reaffirmation of one of the oldest principles of constitutional governance—that the rule of law demands fairness even in the prosecution of the most serious crimes.

By holding that repeated procedural lapses in informing an accused of the grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, the Court has emphasised that constitutional guarantees cannot be treated as empty formalities.

Ultimately, a fair criminal justice system protects not only the rights of the accused but also the credibility of the investigation itself. Public confidence in the administration of justice depends not merely on punishing offenders, but on ensuring that every prosecution proceeds within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law.