Supreme Court mulls larger Bench reference in Meghalaya honeymoon murder case

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 9, 2026) said it might refer to a larger Bench the legal question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi in the murder case of her husband.

A partial working day Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar also indicated that it would closely examine whether the Meghalaya High Court was justified in granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi on the grounds that the arrest memo contained a typographical error.

On July 3, another Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu had refused to stay the High Court order granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi.

On Thursday (July 9, 2026), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State government, raised the question whether the mere mention of a wrong statutory section in an arrest memo, specifically a typographical error, was sufficient to invalidate an arrest and grant bail in the “shocking” murder case.

The High Court had upheld Ms. Raghuvanshi’s bail on the grounds that the police failed to supply proper written grounds of arrest, noting a “total non-application of judicious mind” because the memo cited Section 403 (which does not exist in the context) instead of Section 103(1) (punishment for murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Solicitor General argued that the error was purely clerical.

“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,” he said.

The Bench, however, said the court must reconcile conflicting judgments regarding the necessity of providing grounds in writing at the time of arrest.

“We will consider this matter at length. We will decide whether this requires to be referred to a larger bench,” Justice Misra said.

The top law officer said the gravity of the crime should outweigh a technical typo.

“This is the case where both of them went on honeymoon in Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. She killed the husband on a hill and threw the body into a gorge… This is a very, very serious offense,” Mr. Mehta said.

The Bench directed the State police to provide legible photocopies of the original documents supplied to the accused to verify what information was actually communicated at the time of arrest.

“If this ground (the technicality) is not sustainable, then the bail order goes,” Justice Misra orally observed.

On July 3, another Bench had refused to stay the high court order granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi.

The accused, a resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested in June last year in connection with the killing of her businessman husband, Raja Raghuvanshi.

The couple had gone missing while vacationing in Meghalaya’s Sohra area on May 23 last year. Subsequently, Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was found in a deep gorge on June 2, 2025.

Police have alleged that Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to kill her husband for financial gains.

On June 29, the Meghalaya High Court upheld a trial court order granting bail to the accused.

The High Court had dismissed a criminal petition filed by the State government, seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on April 27.

It had held that the manner in which the grounds of arrest were prepared reflected a “total non-application of judicious mind”.