Introduction:

In the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rajnikant Ojha [CRM (M) 1 of 2025], the Calcutta High Court, through Justice Suvra Ghosh, adjudicated on a pivotal question involving the constitutional validity of arrest procedures executed under a warrant issued by a Magistrate. The petitioner, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, on 29th March 2025, wherein the learned Magistrate denied transit remand and instead granted interim bail to the opposite party, Rajnikant Ojha. The CBI contended that the arrest was conducted in pursuance of a validly issued permanent warrant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, dated 21st January 2019. However, the opposite party challenged the arrest on the grounds of violation of constitutional and statutory provisions under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Arguments:

The CBI argued that the arrest of Rajnikant Ojha was effected by a lawful warrant issued on 21st January 2019, and the arrest memo, accompanying the warrant, disclosed the penal provisions under which the opposite party had been charged. It was further stated that the memo of arrest included reference to the issuance of a permanent warrant by the Court in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, and that such communication fulfilled the requirement under Section 75 of the CrPC, which mandates that the police officer executing the warrant shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested. Additionally, it was emphasized that the arrest memo bore the signature of the father of the arrestee, thereby indicating due compliance with procedural formalities. The petitioner also relied on the fact that the opposite party himself had referred to the offences in his bail petition, establishing that he was aware of the grounds of arrest. The CBI maintained that the learned Magistrate had erred in refusing to grant transit remand and in granting interim bail, as the arrest was effected strictly within the boundaries of procedural law.

Conversely, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the arrest violated fundamental constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides that an arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be and shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Furthermore, it was submitted that Section 75 of the CrPC obligates the executing officer to notify the substance of the warrant to the person being arrested. It was alleged that neither the grounds of arrest were communicated nor did the arrest memo reflect the requisite reasons, rendering the execution of the warrant unconstitutional and legally untenable. The counsel also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha, where the distinction between a warrant of arrest and a memo of arrest was highlighted, emphasizing that a warrant is a judicial authorization while the memo is an administrative communication. The opposite party had already been released on interim bail with directions to appear before the concerned court, and hence, there was no apprehension of evasion or non-cooperation.

Judgement:

The Calcutta High Court, after careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, upheld the constitutional sanctity of Article 22(1) and interpreted it in conjunction with Section 75 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the mere mention of penal sections or a bald reference to the issuance of a permanent warrant does not satisfy the requirement of informing the arrestee of the “substance” of the warrant. The Court emphasized that the warrant of arrest, dated 21.01.2019, only mentioned the relevant penal sections and lacked a narrative explanation of the grounds necessitating the arrest. Justice Suvra Ghosh observed that even if it were assumed that the opposite party had an opportunity to read the warrant, the lack of substantive information regarding the charges and grounds rendered the arrest unconstitutional. The Court distinguished between a legally valid warrant and a compliant arrest memo, stating that the former must be complemented by an intelligible and reasoned communication at the time of arrest. Referring again to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabir Purkayastha’s case, the Court reiterated the significance of protecting personal liberty against arbitrary arrest, particularly when an individual is deprived of their liberty without clear knowledge of the reasons. It concluded that the arrest memo, which merely reiterated that a permanent warrant had been issued, was devoid of the required grounds and reasons, and therefore not in compliance with either the constitutional mandate or the CrPC. Accordingly, the Court held that the order of the Magistrate granting interim bail was legally sound and required no interference. The Court thus dismissed the CBI’s petition and reinforced the necessity of constitutional and procedural compliance during arrest operations.