Must Arrest Grounds Be Given In Writing? Supreme Court Says Judgments Are Conflicting, Mulls Larger Bench Reference

The Supreme Court today indicated that it would consider referring to larger bench the issue as to whether grounds of arrest are mandatorily required to be supplied in writing to the accused at the time of arrest.

A partial working days bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime suspect in the May 2025 "honeymoon murder" of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi, 

The bench conveyed its inclination orally to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Meghalaya). 

Justice Misra pointed to the SG that there are conflicting decisions on the law point by different benches of the Supreme Court. The judge highlighted the case of Pankaj Bansal, where it was held that the Enforcement Directorate must supply grounds of arrest to an accused in writing, the case of Dr Rajinder Rajan, where bail was granted to doctors in an NDPS case as grounds of arrest were not supplied in writing as per 'Mihir Shah' decision and it was held that supply of written grounds was mandatory under all statutes, and the case of Vihaan Kumar, where it was noted that while the grounds of arrest must be communicated, it need not be mandatorily in writing (in paragraph 15 of the judgment)

"We will consider this matter at length. We will also decide if the matter requires to be referred to a larger bench. The problem is there are two judgments.  One is Pankaj Bansal judgment, which was before Vihaan and Mihir Rajesh judgments.  In Bansal judgment, in paragraph 45, requires the communication of grounds of arrest in writing. Now there is the judgment in Rajinder Ranjan, then there is Vihaan judgment which says there is no requirement to give grounds of writing. This is conflict which is arising from various coordinate bench judgments," Justice Misra observed.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that as far as the facts of the present case was concerned, written grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused. However, there was a typographical error because of which Section 103 BNS was wrongly mentioned as Section 403 BNS (which does not exist). The SG stated that the Courts granted bail solely on the ground that this clerical mistake amounted to non-supply of grounds of arrest.

Justice Misra also pointed out that the gravamen of the charge must be disclosed. "It's not about simply mentioning sections...you have to give general background that you are involved in the murder of your husband...".

Ultimately, noting that it was a "serious" case, the matter was re-listed on Tuesday, calling on the State to file legible copies of the original documents supplied to the accused.

On July 3, a bench led by Justice MM Sundresh refused to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, even though it prima facie expressed reservations with the High Court's judgment upholding the bail granted to her only on the ground of a typographical error in quoting a section in the arrest memo. Noting that the woman had already been released, the Court declined to stay the order, although it agreed to consider the petition filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging the bail order.

Background

On June 29, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's bail order, observing that the error showed that the arrest documents were prepared without due application of mind. Furthermore, the High Court noted that even if citing a non-existent "Section 403(1) BNS" instead of Section 103(1) was a typographical slip, its recurrence across multiple core documents cannot be swept away.

The Court observed: "The foundational basis for building up a case against the accused/respondent being found lacking, all other attempts to rectify the subsequent actions or process will have to fail."

The crime came to light after the couple, who had tied the knot on May 12, 2025, went missing on May 23, while on their honeymoon in Meghalaya. They were last seen checking out of a homestay in Nongriat.

A few days later, their rented scooter was found abandoned near Sohrarim. Then, on June 2, around 10 days after their disappearance, Raja's body was discovered in a deep gorge near the Weisawdong Falls in East Khasi Hills.

His wife, accused-Sonam Raghuvanshi, who was missing till June 8, was found near a dhaba on the Varanasi-Ghazipur main road. Later, the Meghalaya police stated that Sonam, along with 21-year-old Raj Kushwaha, was being considered one of the prime suspects in the murder of her husband. State Police have already filed a 700+ page chargesheet in the matter, claiming that murder was premeditated by Sonam and her alleged lover, Kushwaha.

Case Title: STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. SONAM RAGHUVANSHI @ BITTI @ BITTU | SLP(Crl) No. 11944/2026