Background
The incident occurred in May 2025 when Sonam Raghuvanshi allegedly killed her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during a honeymoon trip to Meghalaya. According to the submissions of the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, the offence was premeditated, involved three accomplices, and the victim’s body was disposed of in a gorge after the assault. The accused fled the scene and was later apprehended in Uttar Pradesh.
The trial court granted bail to the accused. The High Court of Meghalaya upheld that bail, noting that the arrest memo erroneously cited Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of the correct provision, Section 103(1) BNS, which prescribes punishment for murder. The High Court treated the mis‑citation as a non‑supply of full grounds of arrest and therefore a basis for granting bail.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The State of Meghalaya filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order. A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu heard the matter on 3 July 2026. Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the bail order as “really shocking” and argued that the error in the arrest memo was merely clerical and did not prejudice the accused. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Darshan, which holds that clerical errors that cause no prejudice cannot serve as a ground for bail.
The Solicitor General further submitted that the magistrate who issued the transit warrant in Uttar Pradesh had recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused. He also pointed out that the same Shillong judge who had earlier denied bail had found sufficient grounds to refuse relief. The bail was granted only after the accused raised the typographical objection in a second bail application, a point the bench noted was not raised in earlier proceedings.
Observations of the Bench
Justice MM Sundresh remarked that, prima facie, the High Court’s judgment appeared problematic. He questioned whether it was appropriate to grant bail solely on the basis of a wrong provision being quoted, especially when bail had previously been denied on merits. He asked the counsel for the accused whether the grounds of arrest had ever been explained to her, noting that if they had not been communicated, the belated raising of the objection might be untenable.
The counsel for the accused responded that the accused had been informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest and that she was subject to strict bail conditions, including a requirement to remain within Shillong. He argued that, with the trial already underway and ninety‑four witnesses listed, continued incarceration was unnecessary.
After noting that the accused had already been released on bail, Justice Sundresh expressed reluctance to stay the order. He stated that, had the accused not been released, the bench would have considered staying the bail. He added that the grant of bail on the cited ground did not preclude the State from re‑arresting the accused if fresh grounds emerged.
Operative Outcome
The Supreme Court declined to stay the bail order passed by the High Court. It issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a response to the special leave petition. The bench made clear that its decision was based on the factual circumstance that the accused was already at liberty, and that the matter would ultimately be resolved at trial.