logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 1125 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11944 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
Parties : State of Meghalaya Versus Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Amit Kumar, Advocate General, Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Vishakha, Arushi Malik, Luv Kumar, Himanshu Sehrawat, Advocates. For the Respondent: Abhay Singh, AOR, Zenith Chhablani, Jishnu Adhikari, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 03-07-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

2. Catch Words:
- bail
- arrest
- typographical error
- counter affidavit
- further hearing

3. Summary:
The Solicitor General argued that the Courts failed to consider crucial material, including a Judicial Magistrate’s recording, and highlighted serious allegations against the respondent. He pointed out that three prior bail applications were rejected and the present plea was new, stressing the lack of adequate reasons for arrest beyond a typographical error. The respondent’s counsel sought time to file a counter‑affidavit, noting that bail had already been effected and the respondent released. The Court permitted the respondent’s request for filing the counter‑affidavit. It also allowed the petitioner’s counsel to submit additional documents. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 9 July 2026.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

We have heard the learned Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Learned Solicitor General submits that both the Courts have not considered the relevant materials against the respondent, including the recording made by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the earlier occasion. Apart from the nature of allegations against the respondent which are quite serious, the fact that three earlier bail applications have been rejected by the Trial Court and the present plea has not been raised earlier, have not been considered by both the Courts. A further submission has been made that it is not a case of grounds of arrest not being served, but is one of not containing adequate reasons, apart from a typographical error.

Reliance has been placed on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the presence of the respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on caveat seeks some time to file the counter affidavit and is permitted to do so. It is also submitted by him that the order granting bail has already been given effect to and the respondent has been released.

Taking note of the above submissions, we are inclined to list the matter for further hearing next Thursday, i.e. on 9th July, 2026.

In the meantime, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to file additional documents.
 
  CDJLawJournal