THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
1 min read
The Supreme Court has refused to stay the Meghalaya High Court’s order granting bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon, while expressing serious prima facie reservations about the reasoning adopted by the High Court.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu declined to pass an ad-interim stay on the bail order after noting that Sonam had already been released from custody. The Court directed the respondent to file a counter-affidavit within four days and listed the matter for further hearing on July 9, 2026, permitting both parties to place additional documents and relevant portions of the chargesheet on record.
Appearing for the State of Meghalaya, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case involved a premeditated murder and that the High Court had granted bail solely on a technical ground despite strong prima facie evidence against the accused. He submitted that Sonam had actively participated in the murder of her husband during their honeymoon, after which the body was disposed of in a gorge and she absconded before being apprehended in Uttar Pradesh.
The State further contended that the Trial Court and the High Court relied on an erroneous reference to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the arrest documents instead of Section 103, which prescribes punishment for murder. According to the State, the incorrect statutory citation was merely a clerical error and did not invalidate the arrest, particularly when the factual allegations had been clearly communicated.
The Supreme Court observed that it had serious reservations regarding the manner in which the High Court dealt with the issue. The Bench noted that the accused had not raised the plea regarding non-communication of the grounds of arrest in her first three bail applications and questioned whether such a technical objection could be invoked at a later stage.
The Court distinguished between a complete failure to communicate the grounds of arrest and an incorrect citation of a statutory provision. It observed that where the factual basis of the arrest has been disclosed, courts must apply a prejudice-based test rather than invalidate proceedings solely because of a typographical or clerical mistake.
During the hearing, counsel for Sonam Raghuvanshi argued that the defect was not merely technical and maintained that no case-specific grounds of arrest had ever been furnished to her. It was submitted that the arrest documents consisted only of a pre-printed checklist without any factual allegations relating to the offence.
Justice Sundresh also observed that even if bail had been granted purely on procedural grounds, such an order would not prevent the investigating agency from effecting a fresh arrest after curing the alleged defect in accordance with law.
The Bench initially indicated its inclination to stay the High Court’s order but altered its course after learning that the respondent had already been released from custody. The Court observed that it had proceeded on the assumption that the accused remained in judicial custody and held that it would not pass an interim order directing her immediate re-arrest without first hearing both sides.
Accordingly, while refusing interim relief, the Supreme Court made it clear that its decision should not be construed as approval of the High Court’s reasoning and that the legality of the bail order would be examined in detail at the next hearing on July 9, 2026.