Section 72

This provision continues a long-standing rule (earlier Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) meant to prevent arbitrary or informal arrests. By requiring a written, signed, and sealed document, the law creates a verifiable record that a court actually authorized the arrest, and fixes accountability on the presiding officer. Making the warrant valid until executed or cancelled (rather than giving it an automatic expiry date) ensures that a person who evades arrest cannot escape justice simply by hiding until a deadline passes.

Courts have historically treated the formal requirements — writing, signature, and seal — as essential safeguards, holding that a warrant lacking these can be challenged as invalid. On the duration point, courts have consistently clarified that an arrest warrant, unlike a search warrant or many other orders, does not lapse with time; it remains executable indefinitely unless the issuing court withdraws it, which is why police can execute warrants issued years earlier if the case is still open.

• Myth: An arrest warrant becomes invalid after a certain number of days or months if not executed.
  Fact: Under this section, the warrant remains in force indefinitely until the issuing court cancels it or it is executed — there is no automatic expiry.
• Myth: A verbal order from a judge to arrest someone is enough.
  Fact: The law requires the warrant to be in writing, signed by the presiding officer, and sealed by the court; an oral instruction alone does not meet this requirement.