Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
P.C. Purohit Son Of Late Shri Shankarlal Purohit - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 972 of 2025
Decided on : 20-03-2025
(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 132(1)(a)(f)(h)(j)(k)(l) - BNSS - Section 72(2) - Non-bailable warrants issued against accused for securing presence - Court quashed the order for non-bailable warrants, allowing conversion to bailable warrants, emphasizing that summons should be preferred unless the accused is likely to evade law or tamper evidence. (Paras 1, 30, 40)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 87 and 88 - Issuance of warrants - Non-bailable warrants should only be issued when the accused does not respond to summons or bailable warrants. (Paras 14, 18)
(C) Presumption of innocence - The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the court must consider the likelihood of evasion or tampering before issuing non-bailable warrants. (Paras 38, 39)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with evading GST of approximately Rs. 2,000 Crores, with non-bailable warrants issued after cognizance was taken. The accused had cooperated with the investigation and appeared before authorities.
Findings of Court:
The issuance of non-bailable warrants was not justified as the accused had shown willingness to comply with the law.
Issues: Whether non-bailable warrants were appropriate given the accused's cooperation and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-bailable warrants should not be issued without considering the accused's willingness to appear and the absence of evidence suggesting evasion or tampering.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the non-bailable warrants were converted into bailable warrants.
Order :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. By filing the present criminal misc. petition u/S 528 BNSS, the accused petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metro-II (for short, 'the trial Court') in Criminal Misc Case No. 06/2025 (Union of India Vs. M/s. Miraj Products Limited & Anr.; to quash the non-bailable warrants in question and further to direct the learned Court concerned to accept the bonds from the accused petitioner as per law.
2. Facts in brief of the case are that the Office of Directorate General of GST Intelligence received an information that Packaging Sales Private Limited is supplying of packing material in the name of fake firms with an intent to dodge the checking conducted by GST Department and finally offloading the material at M/s Miraj. The said department conducted simultaneous raids at the office of M/s Montage Packaging being situated in Jaipur and office of M/s Miraj Products Private Limited at Nathdwara. During the raid at M/s Miraj Products it was allegedly found that a truck was being unloaded at M/s Miraj with invoices in the name of M/s Shri Balaji Enterprises, Ahmedabad. During the raid it was found that M/s Montage used to provide packaging items to M/s Miraj without valid invoices and invoices were issued by M/s Montake in the name of other firms. The department seized the goods which were being unloaded during the raid. The Department proceeded with the investigation which finally culminated into a complaint being lodged against the present petitioner and by order dated 03.08.2024 the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the trial court for offences punishable under section 132(1)(a)(f) (h) (j) (k) and (l) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) and issued the non-bailable warrants to secure his presence.
3. The petitioner and co-accused being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2024 whereby the learned trial court took cognizance and issued the non-bailable warrants for securing their presence, they preferred S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No. 6137/2024 to the extent of quashing the non- bailable warrants. The aforesaid criminal misc. petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.09.2024 with a liberty to the petitioners therein to avail the remedy before the court below for conversion of arrest warrant issued against them into bailable warrant.
4. In view of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 6137/2024, the petitioner preferred an application on 25.09.2024 under section 72(2) of the BNSS for conversion of the non-bailable warrants issued against the accused petitioner into the bailable warrants.
5. The application filed by the accused petitioner under section 72(2) of the BNSS was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, contrary to law and against the principle of governing issuance of warrants. Counsel that in the present case, learned trial Court did not give any reasoning as to whether the issuance of arrest warrant directly is permissible under law considering the fact that since the complaint has been filed after the investigation, only the presence of the accused petitioner has to be secured for the purpose of trial and therefore, in terms of Section 87 and 88 of CrPC, the arrest warrant can only be issued when Court records the satisfaction that issuance of summons will not serve the purpose. However, the learned trial Court did not took this into consideration the aforesaid facts.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that the CGST/RGST Act is not a complete self-contained code and it is dependent upon the provisions of the CrPC/BNSS, as may be applicable at stages, therefore, considering the provision 204(5) CrPC an
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued unless the accused is likely to evade the law or tamper with evidence; summons or bailable warrants are preferred initially.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued as a first resort; summons or bailable warrants are preferred unless there is a likelihood of the accused evading the law.
Economic offences are distinct and require strict handling in matters of bail; conflicting views on warrant issuance must be resolved by a larger bench.
The court affirmed that under the PML Act, the burden of proof lies with the accused, and economic offences necessitate a stringent approach in judicial proceedings.
The seriousness of economic offences, the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PML Act, and the discretion of the trial court in issuing non-bailable warrants under Section 204 of the Code of Crim....
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
Before issuing Non-Bailable Warrant due care and precaution is warranted for Trial Court and Non-Bailable Warrant should not be issued in a cursory manner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
