SC Weighs Landmark Ruling on Written Grounds of Arrest as Sonam Raghuvanshi Bail Row Raises Crucial Constitutional Question
The Supreme Court has signalled that it may refer to a larger Constitution Bench the important legal question of whether investigating agencies must mandatorily furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to every accused at the time of arrest. The issue came to the forefront while the court was hearing the Meghalaya government’s challenge to the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, one of the key accused in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi honeymoon murder case.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar observed that recent Supreme Court rulings have taken conflicting positions on the issue, creating uncertainty for courts and law enforcement agencies. The judges indicated that the inconsistency may require authoritative resolution by a larger Bench to settle the law governing arrests across criminal statutes.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Meghalaya government, argued that a mere typographical error in an arrest memo should not invalidate an arrest or become the sole basis for granting bail in a serious murder prosecution. The State contended that procedural defects must be examined in the context of the overall legality of the arrest rather than mechanically resulting in the accused’s release.
The Bench referred to three important Supreme Court precedents that appear to be at odds. While the Pankaj Bansal judgment required communication of arrest grounds in writing, subsequent decisions in Rajinder Rajan and Mihir Shah strengthened that requirement in certain contexts. However, the later Vihaan Kumar ruling held that although grounds of arrest must be communicated, they need not necessarily be supplied in writing, creating an apparent conflict in the law.
The legal debate emerged from the sensational Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, in which Sonam Raghuvanshi was granted bail by the Meghalaya High Court after it found defects in the arrest documentation. The Meghalaya government has challenged that order, arguing that technical mistakes in paperwork should not outweigh the gravity of the allegations or the broader evidence collected during the investigation.
The Supreme Court has now listed Meghalaya’s appeal against Sonam Raghuvanshi’s bail for further hearing on 14 July, when it is expected to decide whether the legal issue concerning written grounds of arrest should be referred to a larger Bench. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for criminal investigations nationwide, affecting the powers of police and investigative agencies as well as the procedural safeguards available to every arrested person under Article 22 of the Constitution and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
