New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her husband during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, holding that a plea of non-compliance with the mandate of serving grounds of arrest cannot be entertained for the first time in a fourth bail application after three earlier pleas had already been rejected on merits.
The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya against an order of the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, which had confirmed the Trial Court's grant of bail to the respondent in connection with FIR No. 7/2025 registered at Police Station Sohra, East Khasi Hills, under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with a supplementary chargesheet later adding offences under the Arms Act, 1959.
According to the prosecution, the respondent had accompanied the deceased, her husband, to Meghalaya for their honeymoon, during which he was murdered and his body pushed into a gorge with the help of three accomplices allegedly hired by the respondent and a co-accused described as her paramour. A missing person's complaint was lodged by the deceased's brother on 26.05.2025, the body was recovered from the gorge on 02.06.2025, and the FIR came to be registered a day after the post-mortem.
The respondent surrendered at Nanghanj Police Station, Isopur, Uttar Pradesh, and was thereafter arrested at Kotwali Police Station, Ghazipur, on 09.06.2025. The grounds of arrest furnished to her that day mistakenly cited Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), an error the prosecution described as typographical. The remanding Magistrate had specifically recorded that the respondent stated she was aware of the reasons for her arrest, though she did not then have a lawyer and was informed of her right to legal aid.
After three successive bail applications were rejected by the Trial Court on merits, the respondent filed a fourth application contending that the grounds of arrest served on her were not compliant with the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court, being bereft of material particulars. The Trial Court accepted this plea and granted bail, a decision the High Court confirmed.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, argued that the Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra operates prospectively and post-dated the respondent's arrest, that she had surrendered voluntarily and been given both the grounds of arrest and relevant documents, and that her satisfaction with this compliance was recorded by the Magistrate himself. He submitted that the plea of non-compliance was raised only as an afterthought in the fourth bail application.
Senior counsel for the respondent countered that the essence of Article 22(1) of the Constitution required more than a mechanically printed format citing the wrong provision, that the actual reasons for arrest were never truly communicated to her, that such an infirmity went to the root of the arrest and was incurable, and that a constitutional right of this nature could not be waived merely because it was raised at a later stage.
“There is a fundamental difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has to see the prejudice caused to the accused.”
Holding that the respondent's case fell within the second category, since she had, in fact, been served the grounds of arrest and had expressed satisfaction with the reasons before the Magistrate, the Court found no infirmity vitiating the arrest itself. It further noted that the ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah, being a judge-made requirement to effectuate Article 22(1), had been expressly given prospective effect, and the respondent's arrest predated that judgment.
“When an accused person files a bail application, the stage might become irrelevant. However, when the accused person warranted a finding on merits on the earlier occasions, it is not open for him/her to go back and raise the plea on the issue pertaining to the grounds of arrest thereafter.”
While reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the presumption of innocence enures to every accused, the Court observed that the earlier orders rejecting the respondent's bail applications on merits had attained finality and that the trial had already commenced, such that her continued release on bail could hinder its progress.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's order dated 29.06.2026 and the Trial Court's order dated 27.04.2026 granting bail, and directed the respondent to surrender before the Trial Court within three weeks. Liberty was granted to her to file a fresh bail application if the trial was not concluded within six months, in which event neither this order nor the earlier rejections would stand in her way. The appeal was allowed.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate General; Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Senior Advocate; Mr. Abhay Singh, AOR.
Case Title: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, SLP(Crl.) No.11944 of 2026)
