The Rajasthan High Court has held that the arrest of the petitioner Ravi Meena on 01 February 2023 in FIR No. 346/2021 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, was effected in clear violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 41A CrPC and the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. A single bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, while hearing the civil contempt petition, found that the only communication sent to the petitioner was a notice dated 25 January 2023 through WhatsApp requiring his appearance on 31 January 2023. The petitioner promptly replied on 30 January 2023 citing his wife’s illness and sought reasonable time, yet the Investigating Officer neither responded nor took any steps to serve the notice through the modes prescribed by law such as personal service, affixation at residence or speed post. Instead, the petitioner was arrested two days later without any fresh notice or recorded reasons justifying immediate arrest. The Court observed that service of notice under Section 41A CrPC through WhatsApp or any electronic mode is not permissible and does not constitute valid service in the eyes of law.

The bench noted that no notice under Section 41A CrPC had been served upon the petitioner from the date of registration of the FIR on 14 September 2021 till the WhatsApp message of 25 January 2023. The charge-sheet filed on 09 November 2022 also did not contain any specific reasons for the arrest, and the arrest memo and checklist did not reflect independent application of mind. The main accused persons alleged to have accepted bribe were not arrested till date. The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioner had not challenged the arrest before the Magistrate or any competent court at the relevant time and held that the earlier dismissal of the petitioner’s quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and the SLP before the Supreme Court had no bearing on the distinct issue of procedural illegality in the arrest. Reliance placed by the respondents on a Gujarat High Court judgment was found to be misplaced as the facts in that case were entirely different and pertained only to sufficiency of reasons in the checklist, whereas the present case involved complete non-compliance with the mode of service of notice itself.

Justice Praveer Bhatnagar emphasised that the safeguards under Section 41A CrPC and the Supreme Court directions are meant to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any deviation strikes at the root of the constitutional guarantee and amounts to willful disobedience of binding judicial directions. The Court held that Respondent No. 1, Pushpendra Singh Rathod, Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Unit Second, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, had committed contempt of court. The matter has been listed for hearing on the question of sentencing on 06 April 2026, and the said officer has been directed to remain personally present before the Court on the next date. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were not found guilty of contempt.

Case Title: Ravi Meena v. Pushpendra Singh Rathod & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 507/2023
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Pranav Sharma, Mr. Pankaj Maderna and Mr. Hitarth Dixit
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore and Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat

Click HERE for full Judgment