The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 9, 2026) indicated that the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, may have to be referred to a larger Bench in view of conflicting decisions of coordinate Benches on whether the grounds of arrest must necessarily be furnished to an accused in writing.

A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing the State government’s appeal against a June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court, which had upheld a Shillong trial court’s decision granting bail to Ms.

Raghuvanshi on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest.

Supreme Court refuses to stay bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi in honeymoon murder case “Basically, the issue is whether written grounds of arrest are mandatory or not...

We will decide whether the matter requires to be referred to a larger Bench.

There is a conflict arising from different coordinate Bench judgments,” the Bench said.

Referring to the conflicting precedents, the Bench pointed out that, in its 2023 decision in Pankaj Bansal v.

Union of India, the top court had held that, to satisfy the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, communication of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful and, therefore, necessarily furnished to the arrested person in writing.

However, a coordinate Bench in Vihaan Kumar v.

State of Haryana (2025) took a different view.

While recognising that communicating the grounds of arrest is an indispensable constitutional safeguard, it held that furnishing them in writing may not be “practicable” in every case.

What is essential, the Bench observed, is that the arrested person is made fully aware of the reasons for the arrest.

The Bench also referred to Mihir Rajesh Shah v.

State of Maharashtra (2025), in which the top court held that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language understood by the accused, is the only way to give full effect to the constitutional mandate, as it enables the arrested person to consult legal counsel, oppose remand and effectively exercise the procedural safeguards available under the law.

Raja Raghuvanshi murder: Meghalaya police move Supreme Court against Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail Serious offence Appearing for the State government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the constitutional requirement had been complied with, as the written grounds of arrest had been furnished to Ms.

Raghuvanshi.

According to him, the only defect was a “typographical error” in the arrest memo, which mistakenly referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, which deals with murder.

“This is a very serious offence...

I will be able to satisfy Your Lordships that there is no question of any conflict because, in the present case, the written grounds of arrest were supplied.

There was only one typographical error,” Mr.

Mehta submitted.

Counsel appearing for Ms.

Raghuvanshi, however, argued that what had been furnished to the accused was merely a pro forma and did not amount to a meaningful fulfilment of the constitutional mandate.

This prompted the Bench to enquire whether the arrest memo contained any factual particulars of the case apart from merely referring to the statutory provisions.

“Is it just a format or does it contain some information as well?

Because it is not enough to merely mention the sections...

You have to provide the broad factual background of the case,” Justice Misra observed.

Honeymoon murder: Meghalaya HC upholds bail to prime accused Sonam Raghuvanshi The Bench then directed the Solicitor General to file written submissions along with photocopies of the original documents furnished to the accused so that it could examine the exact nature of the information communicated at the time of arrest.

“We will consider the matter in detail...

You file your written submissions.

Just indicate what exactly was communicated to the accused so that we are in a position to understand what was supplied,” the Bench said.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 14.

Earlier, a Bench headed by Justice M.M.

Sundresh had declined to stay the High Court’s order granting bail to Ms.

Raghuvanshi after being informed that she had already been released from judicial custody.

While indicating that it had “reservations” about the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Bench observed that it was equally conscious of the implications of directing an accused back into custody after release on bail..

‘No application of mind’ Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the discrepancy was merely an innocuous clerical or typographical error, the High Court held that the document purportedly communicating the grounds of arrest had been prepared “without any application of mind” and contained allegations bearing no connection to the case.

“If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency,” Justice W.

Diengdoh observed, adding that such glaring errors struck at the very foundation of the arrest process and justified the grant of bail.

The case relates to the murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon in May 2025.

The couple went missing on May 23 while vacationing in the Sohra region of the State.

Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2.

According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband pursuant to a conspiracy allegedly hatched with her purported lover, Raj Kushwaha, with the objective of securing financial gain.