Economic offences are distinct and require strict handling in matters of bail; conflicting views on warrant issuance must be resolved by a larger bench.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Metropolitan-II in criminal case No. 15/2024 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C for conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 132 (1) (B)(C)(L) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with (1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been filed against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency had ample opportunity to apprehend/arrest the petitioner but no steps in this regard were taken and the complaint was filed against the petitioner for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025 has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the above stated offences and has issued arrest warrants straightaway to procure the appearance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that no such arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner at the initial stage of the investigation proceedings as the petitioner was ready and willing to appear before the trial Court. Counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that of evading tax amounting to Rs. 6 Lakhs only, hence, under these circumstances, arrest of the petitioner is not required and the impugned order passed by the Court below be quashed and set aside. Counsel further submits that directions be issued to the Court below to summon the petitioner through summons or bailable warrants. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.C. Purohit Vs. Union of India , reported in 2025 Supreme (Raj.) 1527. Lastly, he argued that the offence under of the CGST Act is punishable with five years imprisonment and the same is triable by Magistrate, hence the arrest of the petitioner is not required.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that of tax evasion amounting to Rs. 10,65,23,833/-. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the petitioner amounts to heinous economic offence. Counsel submits that a similar situation came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein after taking cognizance against the accused, he was also summoned through arrest warrants and he approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 731-732/2021 ( Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and M/S Agribiotech Industries Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma ). Counsel submits that the aforesaid petitions, submitted by the above stated accused persons, were rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 after taking note of several judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Counsel submits that the aforesaid earlier view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Girdhar Gopal Bajoria (Supra) was not brought into the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of P.C. Purohit (Supra). Hence, under these circumstances, the view taken by the Co- ordinate Bench of