The Supreme Court on July 9 indicated that an appeal by the Meghalaya government over bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi may need referral to a larger bench. The case involves conflicting rulings on whether grounds of arrest must be provided in writing.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar heard the state appeal against a June 29 Meghalaya High Court order. That order had upheld bail for Ms Raghuvanshi on grounds that police failed to communicate her arrest reasons properly.
The bench noted conflicting precedents. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) required written communication, while Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) held that written grounds may not always be practicable. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) reaffirmed the need for written grounds in a language understood by the accused.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that written grounds were supplied, with only a typographical error listing Section 403 instead of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Defence counsel argued the document lacked factual particulars. The bench asked for written submissions and original documents, and listed the matter for July 14.
