Inadequate Grounds Of Arrest Don't By Themselves Vitiate Arrest, Prejudice To Accused Must Be Shown: Supreme Court

On this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the Meghalaya honeymoon murder case, holding that the Meghalaya High Court and the Trial Court erred in granting her bail on the ground that she was not supplied with valid grounds of arrest.

The Meghalaya High Court had upheld the Trial Court's bail order in her fourth bail application after finding that the grounds of arrest documents referred to non-existent Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1).

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale held that this was not a case of complete non-service of grounds of arrest but one concerning the adequacy of the reasons communicated to the accused.

Explaining the distinction between cases involving complete non-service of grounds of arrest and those involving inadequacy of the reasons communicated, the Court observed, “It is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. There is a difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and not giving adequate reasons for arrest. While the first category would vitiate the arrest, in the second, one has to see the prejudice.”

The Court noted that Sonam Raghuvanshi had earlier expressed satisfaction regarding the reasons provided to her for her arrest. Thus, it directed her to surrender within three weeks while granting her liberty to seek fresh bail if the trial does not conclude within six months.

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya against the High Court judgment affirming the Trial Court's order granting bail.

The Court observed that the law requiring communication of written grounds of arrest was well settled as a judge-made law by the Supreme Court in judgment dated November 6, 2025 in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which recognised it as a requirement to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court noted that the decision was made prospective and observed that Sonam had been arrested on June 9, 2025, before the judgment was delivered.

The Court also held that such a plea cannot be raised when there is already a finding on the merits of the bail plea. The Court said it is not open to the accused to go back and raise the plea pertaining to the grounds of arrest thereafter.

The Court noted that Sonam Raghuvanshi had expressed satisfaction regarding the reasons for her arrest. Thus, it declined to examine the dispute over whether she had surrendered or had been arrested.

“As recorded earlier, the respondent expressed satisfaction on the reasons behind her arrest. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the issue as to whether the case involves surrender or arrest followed by production before the court. Suffice it to state that both the courts committed an error in granting bail on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court,” the Court said.

The Court further highlighted that even if there is non-compliance with the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest, such a defect would not prevent the investigating agency from effecting a fresh arrest for the purposes of investigation. “Law does not restrain the investigating agency from re-arresting a person. In other words, non-compliance with the requirement of serving the grounds of arrest will not act as a fetter to re-arrest for the purpose of investigation,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected Sonam's claim to bail on the facts of the case. “On the 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,” it held.

While reiterating that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, the Court held that the present case stood on a different footing because Sonam's earlier bail applications on merits had already been rejected and the trial had commenced.

“We are also conscious of the fact that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. However, we are dealing with a case where the earlier orders rejecting bail on merits have attained finality. Trial has already begun. We are inclined to observe that continued enlargement of the respondent at this stage might hinder the ongoing trial in such a matter. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order confirming the order of the Trial Court,” the Court held.

Thus, the Court set aside the High Court's order and granted Sonam three weeks to surrender. It clarified that if the trial does not proceed and conclude within six months, she would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application and this order or the rejection of the previous bail applications will stand in the way.

During the hearing, Sonam's counsel argued that she had never surrendered before the Meghalaya Police and had instead been arrested from Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh. It was submitted that the prosecution's claim of surrender was being raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was contrary to the arrest records and her earlier bail applications.

It was further contended that the documents supplied to her at the time of arrest did not specify the offences applicable to her and therefore failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Meghalaya argued that Sonam had been supplied with the grounds of arrest and the relevant documents, had acknowledged them before the Magistrate, and had raised the constitutional challenge only in her fourth application after three successive bail applications on merits had failed. He also submitted that the reference to Section 403 instead of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the arrest papers was only a typographical error.

Background

According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with her alleged lover Raj Kushwaha and three hired assailants to murder her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, during their honeymoon in Meghalaya. The couple had married on May 12, 2025, and went missing during their honeymoon after checking out of a homestay in Nongriat on May 23. Raja's body was recovered from a gorge near Weisawdong Falls on June 2, while Sonam was traced near Ghazipur on June 9. The Meghalaya Police have since filed a chargesheet exceeding 700 pages alleging that the murder was premeditated.

The High Court had upheld the Trial Court's order granting bail in her fourth bail application after finding that the grounds of arrest documents referred to non-existent Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1), indicating lack of application of mind. The Supreme Court had, however, expressed reservations about that reasoning while hearing the State's appeal.

During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had questioned why the plea regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest was not raised at the earliest opportunity and had orally suggested that Sonam surrender and face trial instead of contesting the State's appeal.

Case: State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu | SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026