Case Overview
The Supreme Court on 9 July 2026 heard the State of Meghalaya’s appeal against the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the murder of her husband, Raja Raghuvanshi. The bench questioned whether the written grounds of arrest must be supplied in a formal memo, a point that has produced conflicting rulings from different coordinate benches of the Court.
Key Developments (as of 9 July 2026)
- The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar noted a conflict between the 2023 Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India ruling (which mandates written communication) and the 2025 Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana decision (which allows flexibility).
- Reference was also made to the 2025 Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra judgment, which reaffirmed the need for written communication in a language the accused understands.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the arrest memo was provided, citing only a typographical error (Section 403 instead of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
- Counsel for Ms. Raghuvanshi contended that the memo was a mere pro‑forma lacking factual details, violating the spirit of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- The Court directed the Solicitor General to submit the original arrest documents for detailed examination and scheduled the next hearing for 14 July 2026.
Important Facts
The murder took place during the couple’s honeymoon in the Sohra region of Meghalaya in May 2025. Raja’s body was recovered on 2 June 2025. The prosecution alleges that Sonam conspired with hired killers and a lover, Raj Kushwaha, for financial gain. The Meghalaya High Court upheld the bail on 29 June 2026, finding the arrest memo de