In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court emphasized that arresting a person without properly informing them about the substance of the charges is unconstitutional. Justice Suvra Ghosh, while dismissing a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), upheld the interim bail granted to the accused, Rajnikant Ojha. The court found that the arrest memo failed to communicate the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The CBI had challenged the order passed on March 29, 2025, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. This order had rejected the agency’s request for a transit remand of the accused and instead granted him interim bail.
Read Also:- Calcutta HC Refuses Interim Relief for Hanuman Jayanti Program at Red Road
The CBI argued that a warrant for Ojha’s arrest was issued on January 21, 2019, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. Ojha was arrested in Kolkata on March 29, 2025, based on this warrant. According to the CBI, the arrest memo included the relevant penal sections and reasons for the arrest. It also stated that the memo was signed by the accused’s father and that the procedure followed was lawful under the CrPC.
However, Ojha’s counsel contended that the grounds of arrest were not properly conveyed to him, making it impossible for him to prepare a defense. He argued that the arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from being detained without being informed of the reasons for their arrest and allows them the right to consult a lawyer.
“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.” – Article 22(1), Constitution of India“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.” – Section 75, CrPC
The court noted that the arrest memo only mentioned that a permanent warrant had been issued by the CJM, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, but did not outline the substance of the charges. Justice Ghosh observed that merely stating the issuance of a warrant does not fulfill the requirement under Section 75 of CrPC or Article 22 of the Constitution.
In support of its position, the CBI referred to judgments including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bankey Behari Singh v. Emperor, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana. The court, however, clarified that these rulings were either distinguishable or not applicable. Specifically, the Prabir Purkayastha case emphasized the difference between formal reasons for arrest and the actual grounds that justify an arrest. The Supreme Court had underlined that failure to communicate these grounds invalidates the arrest.
Justice Ghosh highlighted that the memo did not include essential reasons, such as preventing further offenses, ensuring proper investigation, or avoiding evidence tampering—factors that are generally necessary to justify an arrest.
The court concluded that since the warrant did not inform Ojha about the substance of the charges and the arrest memo lacked sufficient reasoning, his arrest violated constitutional and legal provisions. Therefore, the interim bail granted earlier was justified.
“The warrant of arrest only refers to the penal sections and does not notify the substance of the warrant… Even if the opposite party was allowed to read the warrant, he was not informed of its substance in a way that allowed him to defend himself.” – Justice Suvra Ghosh “In view of the violation of the constitutional mandate… the memo of arrest which is devoid of the reasons and grounds of arrest cannot be said to be in accordance with law.” – Calcutta High Court Judgment
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the CBI’s revisional application and affirmed the order passed by the Magistrate on March 29, 2025. The court directed Ojha to appear before the concerned court as per the previous instructions.
Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v/s. Rajnikant Ojha
Case No: CRM (M) 1 of 2025
