The Supreme Court has asked Sonam Raghuvanshi to surrender into judicial custody while setting aside the Meghalaya High Court's order that had granted her bail in the premeditated murder case of her husband during their honeymoon.

Hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Meghalaya, the Apex Court held that the courts below committed a manifest error of law by enlarging the accused on technical grounds despite her three prior bail rejections on merits having attained finality.

Drawing a clear distinction between the complete non-service of grounds of arrest and minor typographical or procedural defects, the Court applied a prejudice-oriented test and directed the respondent to surrender into judicial custody within two weeks, granting her liberty to file a fresh bail application if the ongoing trial involving 94 prosecution witnesses fails to conclude within six months.

Previously, the Court refused to stay the order passed by the Meghalaya High Court.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale held, "On facts, we find that the respondent is not entitled to bail, not only on merits but also on the grounds discussed by both the courts below. It is not a case where the respondent was completely unserved with the grounds of arrest. There is a clear distinction between the non-service of grounds of arrest and the failure to give adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has to apply the prejudice-oriented test...The respondent is granted two weeks' time to surrender before the competent court. In the event of the trial not proceeding and concluding within a period of six months from today, the respondent is granted liberty to file a fresh application for regular bail. In such an event, neither our present order nor the earlier rejection of her bail applications on merits shall stand in her way."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Appellant-State.

The present Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State of Meghalaya, challenging the order of the Meghalaya High Court dated June 29, which upheld the grant of bail to the Respondent/Accused, Sonam Raghuvanshi. The Respondent stands arrayed as the prime accused in the premeditated murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, which allegedly transpired during their honeymoon in May 2025.

While the High Court had upheld her bail primarily on the ground that the police erroneously cited a non-existent provision (Section 403(1) BNS instead of Section 103(1) BNS) and served a standardized checklist, the Apex Court held that a clear distinction exists between a complete non-service of grounds of arrest and minor technical or typographical errors in the served documents. The Bench emphasized that where grounds have been communicated in substance and recorded by the Magistrate during remand, an accused cannot turn around at a belated stage—after three successive bail rejections on merits—to seek relief on technicalities.

Recognizing that the trial involving 94 prosecution witnesses is underway, the Supreme Court granted the accused two weeks to surrender into judicial custody, with a protective direction allowing her to reapply for bail if the trial fails to conclude within six months.

During the arguments, Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the Accused was formally arrested at a 'One Stop Centre' in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, and had not voluntarily surrendered, as claimed by the prosecution. The defence asserted that the police failed to communicate valid "grounds of arrest" in compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

It was submitted that the agency merely served a blank proforma checklist containing generic penal options with no specific factual details, alongside citing a non-existent provision [Section 403(1) BNS instead of Section 103(1) BNS]. The defence argued that such procedural and constitutional non-compliance went to the very root of the arrest, rendering it uncurable and vitiating the ongoing custody.

Solicitor General, appearing for the Appellant-State, contended that the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) is prospective in nature and that the present case is one of surrender. He submitted that the respondent was provided with not only the grounds of arrest but also all relevant case documents. Furthermore, she expressed satisfaction regarding due compliance before the learned Magistrate, a fact explicitly recorded in the judicial remand order.

The SG highlighted that there was no explanation offered for her disappearance following the crime, and such a technical plea cannot be permitted by way of an afterthought. Given the exceptionally serious nature of the allegations, her bail applications had been rejected on merits on three prior occasions, and consequently, the present appeal ought to be allowed.

Upon hearing the parties, the Bench observed that a clear legal distinction exists between the complete non-service of grounds of arrest and the service of grounds containing alleged inadequacies or technical errors.

The Apex Court held that while complete non-service might vitiate an arrest, defects in details or typographical slips require the application of a prejudice-oriented test.

The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) aims to inform the accused of the reasons for detention to enable an effective defence, a requirement that was substantially complied with in the present case, as recorded in the Magistrate's remand order and evidenced by the Respondent's participation in prior proceedings without raising prejudice.

It observed, "The law is well-settled that serving the grounds of arrest is mandatory. This requirement was introduced as judge-made law by the decision of this Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. There is a reason why this Court was pleased to hold that, although such a procedure was not explicitly contemplated, it is nonetheless required to give full effect to Article 22(1). Precisely for the same reason, the decision was directed to apply prospectively. Contrary to the reliance placed by the courts below, the respondent in the case on hand was arrested much prior, on June 9, 2025...Apart from the fact that the respondent was conspicuously absent and could not be traced after the occurrence, the law does not restrain the prosecuting agency from re-arresting a person. In other words, non-compliance with the service of grounds of arrest will not act as a fetter to re-arrest an accused for the purpose of investigation."

The Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court committed a manifest error of law by enlarging the Respondent on bail purely on technical grounds while misapplying the binding judicial precedents concerning written grounds of arrest.

The Bench observed that the previous orders rejecting bail on merits had attained finality and that permitting the Respondent to remain enlarged on bail at this junction could potentially hinder the ongoing trial, wherein 94 prosecution witnesses were scheduled to be examined.

"We are only clarifying that when an accused files an initial application, the stage might become irrelevant. However, once the Court has rendered a finding on merits, it is not open to the accused to turn around at a later stage and raise a technical plea pertaining to the grounds of detention. As recorded earlier, the respondent did express her satisfaction regarding the reasons behind her arrest before the learned Magistrate...We are not inclined to go into the factual dispute as to whether the case involves a voluntary surrender or an arrest followed by production before the Court. Suffice it to state that both the Trial Court and the High Court have committed an error in granting enlargement on bail on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court", the Court said.

The Apex Court granted the Respondent three weeks' time to surrender before the competent jurisdictional court. However, balancing the liberty of the Accused with the sanctity of the trial, the Bench clarified that if the trial failed to conclude or make substantial progress within six months, the Respondent would be at liberty to approach the competent court with a fresh application for regular bail.

Cause Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi [SLP(Crl) No.11944/2026]

Tags: