SC to examine if arrest memo typo can justify bail for Sonam Raghuvanshi
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the incorrect statutory provision cited in the arrest memo was merely a clerical error and could not be a valid ground to invalidate the arrest or sustain bail in a murder case. The Supreme Court may refer the case to a larger bench.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it may refer to a larger bench the legal question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo, including the mention of an incorrect statutory provision, is sufficient to invalidate an arrest and justify bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused of murdering her husband.
A partial working-day bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar also indicated that it would closely examine whether the Meghalaya High Court was justified in upholding Raghuvanshi's bail solely on the ground that the arrest memo contained such an error.
The bench directed the Meghalaya Police to place legible copies of the original arrest documents on record so it could verify what was actually communicated to the accused at the time of her arrest.
Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the mention of the wrong statutory section in the arrest memo was a purely clerical error and could not be treated as a ground to invalidate the arrest or sustain bail in a murder case.
"This is a very serious case where bail has been granted on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were not supplied, even though there is a record showing that they were furnished at the time of arrest," Mehta submitted.
He further contended that the gravity of the offence should not be overshadowed by a technical defect in the paperwork.
"This is a case where the couple went on their honeymoon to Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. She allegedly killed her husband on a hill and the body was thrown into a gorge. This is a very serious offence," he told the court.
The bench, however, observed that it would have to reconcile conflicting judicial precedents on whether written grounds of arrest must be supplied at the time of arrest and what the consequences are if procedural defects are found.
"We will consider this matter at length. We will decide whether it requires reference to a larger bench," Justice Misra said.
The court also orally observed that if the legal ground relied upon by the High Court was found to be unsustainable, the bail order itself may not survive.
The Meghalaya High Court had upheld Raghuvanshi's bail after holding that the police had failed to properly communicate the written grounds of arrest. It noted a "total non-application of judicial mind" because the arrest memo cited Section 403 instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which prescribes punishment for murder.
On June 29, the High Court dismissed the Meghalaya government's plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted by a trial court on April 27. Earlier, on July 3, another Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu had declined to stay the High Court's order.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore, was arrested in June last year in connection with the alleged murder of her husband, businessman Raja Raghuvanshi.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya's Sohra region on May 23 last year. Raja Raghuvanshi's body was later recovered from a deep gorge on June 2, 2025. Investigators have alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gain.
The Supreme Court will now determine whether the defect in the arrest memo was significant enough in law to justify the continuation of the bail granted to the accused.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it may refer to a larger bench the legal question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo, including the mention of an incorrect statutory provision, is sufficient to invalidate an arrest and justify bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi, who is accused of murdering her husband.
A partial working-day bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar also indicated that it would closely examine whether the Meghalaya High Court was justified in upholding Raghuvanshi's bail solely on the ground that the arrest memo contained such an error.
The bench directed the Meghalaya Police to place legible copies of the original arrest documents on record so it could verify what was actually communicated to the accused at the time of her arrest.
Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the mention of the wrong statutory section in the arrest memo was a purely clerical error and could not be treated as a ground to invalidate the arrest or sustain bail in a murder case.
"This is a very serious case where bail has been granted on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were not supplied, even though there is a record showing that they were furnished at the time of arrest," Mehta submitted.
He further contended that the gravity of the offence should not be overshadowed by a technical defect in the paperwork.
"This is a case where the couple went on their honeymoon to Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. She allegedly killed her husband on a hill and the body was thrown into a gorge. This is a very serious offence," he told the court.
The bench, however, observed that it would have to reconcile conflicting judicial precedents on whether written grounds of arrest must be supplied at the time of arrest and what the consequences are if procedural defects are found.
"We will consider this matter at length. We will decide whether it requires reference to a larger bench," Justice Misra said.
The court also orally observed that if the legal ground relied upon by the High Court was found to be unsustainable, the bail order itself may not survive.
The Meghalaya High Court had upheld Raghuvanshi's bail after holding that the police had failed to properly communicate the written grounds of arrest. It noted a "total non-application of judicial mind" because the arrest memo cited Section 403 instead of Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which prescribes punishment for murder.
On June 29, the High Court dismissed the Meghalaya government's plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted by a trial court on April 27. Earlier, on July 3, another Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Sheel Nagu had declined to stay the High Court's order.
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore, was arrested in June last year in connection with the alleged murder of her husband, businessman Raja Raghuvanshi.
The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya's Sohra region on May 23 last year. Raja Raghuvanshi's body was later recovered from a deep gorge on June 2, 2025. Investigators have alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gain.
The Supreme Court will now determine whether the defect in the arrest memo was significant enough in law to justify the continuation of the bail granted to the accused.
