In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has emphasized that trial courts must exercise due diligence and provide justifiable reasons when issuing arrest warrants. The judgment was delivered by Justice Suvra Ghosh in the case of Shashanka Maiti & Ors. v/s. The State of West Bengal (CRR 1877 of 2024), highlighting the necessity for judicial prudence to safeguard individual liberty.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint lodged on November 26, 2015, which led to a charge sheet being filed on August 6, 2021. The petitioners, Shashanka Maiti and others, were not named in the original FIR and were not served any notice upon the submission of the charge sheet. Despite this, the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jhargram, issued a warrant of arrest against them on September 19, 2023, without providing any reasons for the decision.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the issuance of a non-bailable arrest warrant without justifiable reasons. The petitioners argued that they were not arrested during the investigation and that a summons, rather than a warrant, should have been issued upon the court taking cognizance of the charge sheet. The petitioners were accused under sections 420, 406, 467, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, but not under section 409, which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent.
Court’s Decision
Justice Ghosh quashed the arrest warrant, criticizing the trial court for issuing it mechanically and without application of mind. The court noted that the petitioners had not been charged under section 409 of the IPC, which is considered a heinous offense, and there was no indication that they were likely to evade the process of law or tamper with evidence.
In her judgment, Justice Ghosh cited several precedents, including Inder Mohan Goswami v/s. State of Uttaranchal and Sharif Ahmed v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, underscoring that non-bailable warrants should only be issued under stringent conditions, such as when it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court, or if the person poses a risk of harming someone if not placed into custody immediately.
Key Observations
Justice Ghosh made several critical observations in her ruling:
– “Issuance of non-bailable warrant involves interference with personal liberty and arrest and imprisonment mean deprivation of the most precious right of an individual.”
– “Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result.”
– “The learned Trial Court has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners mechanically without application of mind.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Name: Shashanka Maiti & Ors. v/s. The State of West Bengal
– Case Number: CRR 1877 of 2024
– Judgment Date: July 22, 2024
– Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Mr. Prabir Kr. Mitra, Mr. Achin Jana, Mr. Pinak Kr. Mitra, Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh, Mr. Bhaskar Dalui
– State’s Counsel: Mr. Debasish Roy, Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ms. Trina Mitra
