Supreme Court cancels honeymoon murder accused's bail, distinguishes defective from missing arrest grounds

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail, holding non-service of arrest grounds differs from inadequate reasons requiring proof of prejudice.

The Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused in a case of murder allegedly committed during her honeymoon in Meghalaya. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the State of Meghalaya’s appeal, holding that both the Trial Court and the High Court erred in enlarging her on bail on the ground that arrest grounds were not properly served.

The Court drew a distinction that shaped the outcome: between non-service of the grounds of arrest, which may vitiate an arrest, and non-furnishing of adequate reasons, where a court must examine the prejudice caused to the accused. On the facts, the Court found the grounds had been served, placing the case in the second category. It directed the respondent to surrender within three weeks, while leaving open a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within six months.

How the dispute reached the Court

The prosecution’s case is that after the respondent married the deceased, she accompanied him to Meghalaya for their honeymoon, during which he was murdered and 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 complaint was filed by the deceased’s brother on 26 May 2025. The body was recovered from a deep gorge on 2 June 2025, and after a post mortem on 3 June 2025, FIR No. 7/2025 was registered at Police Station Sohra, District East Khasi Hills, under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The respondent surrendered before Nanghanj Police Station, Isopur, Uttar Pradesh, and was arrested by the appellant at Kotwali Police Station, Ghazipur, on 9 June 2025 at 6 pm. Grounds of arrest were supplied to her the same day. A chargesheet was filed on 5 September 2025, charges were framed on 28 October 2025, and a supplementary chargesheet dated 10 February 2026 added charges under Sections 25(1)(A) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The grounds of arrest referred to the offence as one under Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1), which the Court treated as an apparent typographical error.

The bail plea and the rival arguments

The respondent had filed three successive bail applications before the Trial Court on merits. A fourth bail application, forming the subject matter of the appeal, was based on the plea of non-compliance with the mandate of serving grounds of arrest, contending that the document supplied on 9 June 2025 was bereft of material particulars. The Trial Court accepted this and granted bail, which the High Court confirmed.

For the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that this Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra is prospective. He submitted this was a case of surrender, that grounds of arrest and relevant documents were supplied, and that the respondent had recorded her satisfaction before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. He described the plea on grounds of arrest as an afterthought raised only in the fourth bail application, given that earlier applications were rejected on merits.

Senior counsel for the respondent argued that what was served was a mechanically printed format, that the wrong provision was quoted, and that the actual reason for arrest was not conveyed. This infirmity, being a constitutional mandate under Article 22(1), was said to be incurable and incapable of waiver.

What the Court held on the arrest grounds

The Court accepted that serving grounds of arrest is mandatory, a requirement introduced as judge-made law in Mihir Rajesh Shah to give effect to Article 22(1). Since that decision applies prospectively, and the respondent was arrested on 9 June 2025, before its pronouncement, the Court noted the timeline.

The central distinction the Court drew was between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons. “While the first category might vitiate the arrest,” the Court said, the second requires examining the prejudice caused. On the facts, the respondent had been served with the grounds, so her case fell in the second category. She had also not raised the plea at the earliest, doing so only in her fourth bail application.

Waiver, re-arrest and the merits

On the argument that a fundamental rights plea can be raised at any stage, the Court clarified that while the stage may be irrelevant when a bail application is filed, an accused who obtained findings on merits on earlier occasions cannot later revive the grounds-of-arrest issue.

The Court also observed that the law does not restrain a prosecuting agency from re-arresting a person, and that non-compliance in serving grounds and consequent bail would not fetter a re-arrest for investigation.

The respondent had expressed satisfaction with the reasons for her arrest before the Judicial Magistrate, and relevant documents were served. On that basis, the Court declined to decide whether the case involved voluntary surrender or arrest followed by production, finding that both courts below had erred in granting bail.

The Court acknowledged that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that presumption of innocence applies. It noted, however, that earlier orders rejecting bail on merits had attained finality and the trial had already begun, so continuing the enlargement might hinder the trial.

Order

The Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 29 June 2026 and the Trial Court’s order dated 27 April 2026. The respondent was granted three weeks to surrender before the trial court. If the trial is not concluded within six months, she may file a fresh bail application, in which case neither this order nor the earlier orders rejecting bail would stand in her way. The appeal was allowed.