Memo of Arrest Devoid of Grounds—Violation of Constitutional Mandate’: Calcutta High Court Upholds Interim Bail, Holds Arrest Invalid Without Written Grounds Under Article 22 and Section 75 C
Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta under its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh, dismissed a revisional application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thereby affirming an earlier order granting interim bail to the accused. The bench recorded that the arrest memo and warrant failed to communicate the necessary grounds for arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The case stems from a transit remand rejection order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas on 29 March 2025. The High Court declined to interfere with the said order, stating, "The memo of arrest which is devoid of the reasons and grounds of arrest cannot be said to be in accordance with law.”
The petitioner, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenged the order dated 29 March 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, in connection with R.C. no. 220 of 2023 E 0019 of CBI, EO II, New Delhi. The impugned order had rejected the petitioner’s request for transit remand of the accused Rajnikant Ojha and instead granted him interim bail.
According to submissions made by the petitioner, the accused was arrested on 29 March 2025 in Kolkata pursuant to a permanent warrant issued on 21 January 2019 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI submitted an affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit, which were taken on record by the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the arrest memo contained relevant penal sections under which the accused had been charged, as well as the reasons for his arrest. It was further submitted that notification of the substance of the warrant had been made to the accused in compliance with Section 75 of CrPC, and that the memo bore the signature of the father of the accused.
The petitioner relied on the following judicial authorities:
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
- Bankey Behari Singh and Others v. Emperor, 1918 SCC OnLine Pat 157
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party submitted that the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to the accused at the time of arrest, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It was argued that the accused was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, the interim bail granted by the Magistrate required the accused to appear before the appropriate court, thereby ensuring procedural compliance without obstructing justice.
The opposite party also contended that the warrant of arrest was invalid due to its non-compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
The Court analysed the legal position regarding communication of grounds of arrest. It reproduced relevant provisions:
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. - (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
“75. Notification of substance of warrant. - The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.”
The Bench referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in Prabir Purkayastha, observing that there exists a critical distinction between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest":
“Reasons for arrest in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters whereas grounds of arrest contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitates the arrest of the accused.”
It further stated, “Absence of communication of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, vitiates the arrest and is invalid in the eye of law.”
With regard to the other authorities cited, the Court recorded that the Patna High Court’s decision in Bankey Behari Singh focused on opportunities to understand charges and was distinguishable. The Court found Vihaan Kumar inapplicable as it related to arrests without a warrant.
Discussing the content of the memo of arrest, the Court observed:
“The memo of arrest discloses the penal sections with which the opposite party is charged and as reasons for arrest, records that permanent warrant was issued by the concerned Court.”
However, the Court disagreed with the sufficiency of this reasoning: “The reasons for arrest cannot be restricted to ‘permanent warrant was issued by the Hon’ble CJM Court, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh dated 21.01.2019.’”
It cited the Supreme Court’s articulation of grounds that justify arrest:
“To prevent the accused person from committing any other offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person from making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating officer.”
The Court held that none of these grounds had been reflected in the memo of arrest. Consequently, the arrest lacked the necessary legal foundation.
It concluded:
“Even if it is held that the opposite party was given an opportunity to read the warrant of arrest, he was still not equipped with the knowledge of the substance thereof in order to defend himself since the warrant is bereft of such substance.”
“The memo of arrest which is devoid of the reasons and grounds of arrest cannot be said to be in accordance with law.”
Based on its findings, the High Court stated: “Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.”
“The order dated 29th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in R.C. no. 220 of 2023 E 0019 of CBI, EO II, New Delhi dated 21st July, 2023 be affirmed.”
The Court further directed: “The opposite party is directed to appear before the concerned Court in terms of the said order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Rajdeep Majumder, Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Amajit De, Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Pritam Roy, Advocate, Aroshi Rathore, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sounak Mondal, Advocate, Sreyash Kumar Singh, Advocate
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rajnikant Ojha
Case Number: CRM (M) 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh
[Read/Download order]
