'WhatsApp Notice Not Valid For Arrest U/S 41A CrPC': Rajasthan HC Convicts Cop For Contempt Over Violation Of Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
The Rajasthan High Court convicted a police officer for contempt of court in light of the fact that the petitioner's arrest was made by the respondent-police officer merely on the basis of an intimation over WhatsApp, without furnishing a valid notice as contemplated under Section 41-A of CrPC.
The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar held that intimation made through WhatsApp did not satisfy the requirement of service laid down under Section 41-A, and hence could not be treated as a valid service of notice in the eyes of law.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the directions given by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar to prevent arbitrary arrest.
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in 2021. No notice was issued to him till 2023. Then in 2023, a notice was sent to him through WhatsApp requiring his appearance at the Police Station. Petitioner promptly replied to this notice informing about his inability to appear owing to wife's illness.
Petitioner's reply to the notice was not responded to by the police. Rather, two days thereafter, he was arrested and presented before the Special Judge. The Charge Sheet submitted did not contain any specific reasons for his arrest. Further the main accused was not arrested till date. In this background, the petition was filed before the Court.
The Court perused Section 41-A, CrPC, and the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar as well as Satender Kumar Antil v CBI & Anr., and opined that service of notice under Section 41-A of CrPC through WhatsApp or electronic mode was not permissible and it should be issued as per directions contained in the case of Arnesh Kumar.
The Court highlighted that the only communication addressed to the petitioner was the notice sent on WhatsApp which could not be regarded as notice served in a manner laid in law.
“…even assuming that the Investigating Officer had visited the petitioner's residence and did not find him present, it was incumbent upon the officer to ensure service of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, including by affixing the notice at the residence or at any conspicuous place.”
In this background, the Court held that the conduct of the respondent was a clear departure from the procedure prescribed in law as well as by the Supreme Court. The deviation struck at the very foundation of the constitutional guarantee of liberty, and attracted the jurisdiction of this Court for contempt.
Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for sentencing.
Title: Ravi Meena v Pushpendra Singh Rathod
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohit Khandelwal, with Mr. Pranav Sharma; Mr. Pankaj Maderna; Mr. Hitarth Dixit
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore; Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat