The Calcutta High Court clarified that once a copy of the arrest warrant is furnished to the accused in court and the accused is given a reasonable opportunity to surrender before the relevant court, procedural fairness is achieved; prior failure to supply the copy does not vitiate proceedings. This order disposes of a writ petition and serves as binding authority within West Bengal on the procedural aspect of supply of arrest warrant copies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23258/2025 of SUJIT JANA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0454042025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-supply of a copy of the warrant of arrest by the police violates the rights of an accused, and what remedial steps suffice. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that although the petitioner had initially not received a copy of the arrest warrant from the police, once the report and a copy of the warrant were provided to the petitioner’s counsel in open court, the grievance was redressed. The petitioner’s undertaking to surrender before the appropriate Magistrate in Maharashtra within two weeks satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness. No further relief was necessary since the defect was cured during the proceedings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner alleged he was not given the copy of the arrest warrant by Garbeta Police Station; State produced the report and warrant in court and provided it to petitioner’s counsel; petitioner agreed to appear before the Maharashtra court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly on the procedural aspect of supply of arrest warrant copies |
| Follows | No specific case cited; disposed based on facts and fairness in the present matter. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court clarified that supply of the arrest warrant copy at the stage of court hearing, with opportunity for the accused to respond/surrender, is sufficient to address procedural grievances.
- Failure by the police to give the warrant copy earlier does not vitiate proceedings if the defect is remedied during the hearing.
- Petitioners should be ready to undertake to surrender before the concerned court once documents are made available.
- The order demonstrates the flexibility of courts to cure procedural defects in criminal investigations or processes during writ proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court noted the only grievance was non-supply of the warrant of arrest. Upon the State producing the report and the actual warrant in court, and handing over copies to petitioner’s counsel, the procedural irregularity was cured. The petitioner’s undertaking to surrender before the Magistrate in Maharashtra within the prescribed period satisfied the requirement of procedural propriety. The Court found nothing further required adjudication because the petitioner had now been provided with all relevant documents and an opportunity to act accordingly. The Court declined to comment on the merits of the criminal case or accept any allegations as admitted since no affidavit was called from the respondents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that he had not been given a copy of the warrant of arrest by the Garbeta Police Station.
- Claimed this was a violation of procedural rights.
State
- Submitted a report along with the copy of the arrest warrant in court.
- Provided copy to the petitioner’s counsel in open court.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the Court alleging that Garbeta Police Station, West Bengal, did not supply him a copy of the arrest warrant despite a case pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 2, Pune, Maharashtra. During hearing, the State produced the required documents in court and gave the petitioner’s counsel a copy. The petitioner agreed to surrender before the concerned court in Maharashtra within two weeks. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addresses procedural aspects related to the execution and notification of warrants of arrest under criminal law provisions. The Court focused on ensuring the accused was informed of the substance of the warrant and given documents before being required to act, thus satisfying principles of natural justice and due process.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded; the order is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court permitted rectification of a procedural lapse (non-supply of arrest warrant copy by police) within the course of the writ proceedings itself, by making the documents available to the accused’s counsel in court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural fairness requirements reaffirmed; no existing precedent was broken or overruled.