The Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that it may refer to a larger bench the legal question of whether a typographical error in an arrest memo is sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail to an accused. This observation came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Meghalaya government challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the Indore woman accused of plotting her husband's murder during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in May 2025.
Background of the Case
Sonam Raghuvanshi, a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, is accused of conspiring to kill her husband, Raja, while they were on honeymoon in East Khasi Hills. Police allege that she orchestrated the murder with the help of her lover, Raj Kushwaha, and three others. She was arrested in June 2025 but was later released on bail. She is currently facing trial in a Meghalaya court.
High Court's Basis for Granting Bail
The Meghalaya High Court, in its June 29 order, upheld a trial court's decision to grant bail to Raghuvanshi. The high court cited that the police failed to supply proper written grounds of arrest and that there was a “total non-application of judicious mind” as the arrest memo cited Section 403 (which does not exist in the relevant context) instead of Section 103(1) (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The error was described as a typographical mistake.
Supreme Court Proceedings
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar heard the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Meghalaya government, argued that a mere typographical error in the arrest memo should not invalidate the arrest, especially in a “shocking” murder case. “In this matter, this is a very serious case where bail is granted on the grounds that grounds (of arrest) were not supplied… though at the time of arrest, there is a record that there is a supply of grounds,” Mehta submitted.
Justice Misra responded, “We will consider this matter at length. We will decide whether this requires to be referred to a larger Bench… If this ground is not sustainable, then the bail order goes.” The bench asked Mehta to furnish legible photocopies of documents supplied to the accused and posted the matter for further hearing on July 14.
Previous Bench's Reservation
On July 3, another bench led by Justice MM Sundresh had refused to stay the high court order granting bail, noting that Raghuvanshi had already been released from jail. However, the bench expressed reservation over the high court's reasoning, which set the stage for the current hearing.
Legal Implications
The case raises a critical question in criminal law: whether a technical error in an arrest memo can override the gravity of the alleged offense. If the Supreme Court refers the matter to a larger bench, it could lead to a binding precedent on the validity of arrests and the grounds for bail in cases involving procedural errors. The Meghalaya government contends that the high court's order undermines the seriousness of the crime and sets a problematic precedent.
