Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.SUNDRESH, PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ
State of Meghalaya – Appellant
Versus
Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3413 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 11944 of 2026)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3) – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) – Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Cancellation of bail – Murder of husband – Serving of grounds of arrest is mandatory in order to give effect to Article 22(1) of Constitution – Non-compliance of service of grounds of arrest to accused and consequent enlargement on bail, will not act as a fetter to re-arrest the accused for the purpose of investigation – There is a fundamental difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder – While first category might vitiate arrest, in second category, one has to see prejudice caused to accused – In instant case, it is not as if respondent was not served with grounds of arrest – Case of respondent falls within second category – Respondent is not entitled for bail – When accused person warranted finding on merits on earlier occasions, it is not open for him/her to go back and raise plea on issue pertaining to grounds of arrest thereafter – Bail is rule and jail is exception – Presumption of innocence enures to every accused – However, is a specific case where earlier orders rejecting bail applications of respondent, on merits, have attained finality, and trial has already begun – Continuing enlargement of respondent on bail, at this stage, might hinder ongoing trial – Impugned orders granting bail set aside. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Case of prosecution is that after marriage of respondent with deceased, she accompanied deceased to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. During their honeymoon, deceased was murdered and, thereafter, was pushed into a gorge with help of three accomplices who have been hired by respondent and co-accused, being her alleged paramour. Respondent has filed three successive bail applications before Trial Court seeking adjudication and consequent enlargement, on merits. Thereafter, 4th bail application has been filed by respondent seeking enlargement, which is subject matter of present appeal, on the plea of non-compliance of mandate of serving grounds of arrest.
Findings of Court:
Respondent is granted a period of three weeks from today to surrender before concerned trial Court. In the event of the trial not proceeding and being concluded within a period of six months, the respondent is given liberty to file a fresh bail application, in which case, neither this order nor earlier orders rejecting the respondent’s bail applications would stand in her way.
Result : Appeal allowed. Bail cancelled.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-State is the prosecuting agency aggrieved by the enlargement of the respondent on bail in connection with FIR No. 7/2025 dated 03.06.2025, registered at Police Station - Sohra, District – East Khasi Hills, for the offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 309(6) and 3(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNS’). A chargesheet was filed against the respondent on 05.09.2025. Charges were framed on 28.10.2025. Vide a supplementary chargesheet dated 10.02.2026, the respondent was additionally charged for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(A) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that after the marriage of the respondent with the deceased, she accompanied the deceased to Meghalaya for their honeymoon. During their honeymoon, the deceased was murdered and, thereafter, was pushed into a gorge with the help of three accomplices who have been hired by the respondent and the co-accused, being her alleged paramour.
4. Having found that the whereabouts of the deceased and the respondent was not known, a Missing Person(s) Complaint was submitted by the brother of the deceased on 26.05.2025. On 02.06.2025, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the deep gorge and a post mortem examination was conducted on 03.06.2025, following which the First Information Report was registered, as aforestated. The respondent surrendered before Nanghanj Police Station, Isopur, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, she was brought to Kotwali Police Station, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, where she was duly arrested by the appellant on 09.06.2025 at 6 pm. An application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur for the grant of transit remand.
5. The grounds of arrest have been supplied to the respondent on 09.06.2025. According to the appellant, the relevant documents have also been supplied to the respondent. However, the grounds of arrest indicate the offence as one punishable under Section 403(1) of the BNS instead of Section 103(1) of the BNS, which is an apparent typographical error. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sohra Civil Sub Division, Sohra vide its order dated 11.06.2025, made the following observations while remanding the accused to Judicial Custody:
“1. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2. The accused persons: Vishal Singh Chauhan, Raj Singh Kushwaha, Aakash Rajput, Anand Kurmi and Sonam Raghuvanshi are produced before me today.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
8. I have spoken to each accused person. They have each stated that they are aware of the reasons why they have been arrested. I have heard them verbally state the reasons and grounds of their arrest and I am satisfied that they are well aware of the reasons and grounds of their arrest. I have asked them whether they have engaged any legal counsel. Raj, Vishal, Anand and Akash have submitted that they are without representation. They have been apprised of their right to legal aid and submitted that they would like to avail of legal aid.
9. Sonam has submitted that her brother is supposed to be arranging for a legal counsel for her. She states that, at present, she does not have any lawyer representing her. She is accordingly informed that a legal aid defence counsel will appear for her for now and that she is at liberty to appoint a private counsel..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”
6. The respondent has filed three successive bail applications before the Trial Court seeking an adjudication and consequent enlargement, on merits. Thereafter, a 4th bail application has been filed by the respondent seeking enlargement, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, on the plea of noncompliance of the mandate of serving the grounds of arrest. It is also the case of the respondent that the so called grounds of arrest dated 09.06.2025 cannot be termed as such, being bereft of the material particulars. Accepting the contention made on her behalf and in light of the judgments re
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
