Section 74

Arrest warrants are ordinarily entrusted to police officers because they are trained and legally empowered to make arrests safely and lawfully. However, the law recognizes emergencies — situations where a suspect might flee or cause harm if the arrest is delayed until a police officer becomes available. This provision, carried forward from earlier codes of criminal procedure (including the old Section 39 CrPC), allows courts flexibility to ensure justice isn't stalled by administrative unavailability, while still keeping police as the default and preferred executors.

Courts have historically read the equivalent provision under the CrPC (Section 39) as an exception, not the rule — emphasizing that direction to a non-police person must be justified by genuine urgency and the actual unavailability of police, not mere convenience. Judicial commentary has stressed that any private or non-police person authorized this way still enjoys the same legal protection and duty as a police officer would in executing that specific warrant, but the power is meant to be used sparingly.

• Myth: Any random person can be given an arrest warrant to execute if police are busy.
  Fact: The law requires genuine urgency and real unavailability of police — courts have read this as a narrow exception, not routine practice.
• Myth: If a warrant names multiple police officers, all of them must be present together to arrest the person.
  Fact: Section 74(2) allows any one or more of the named officers or persons to execute the warrant alone.