A reference to a larger bench is redundant when alleged conflicting views in previous coordinate bench decisions were based on distinct individual facts of each case rather than established, contradictory legal principles regarding statutory rights of an accused.

Order

Per Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

The following question has been referred to be answered by this Larger Bench:-

“Whether the arrest warrants issued against the accused committing economic offence or heinous offences like murder/rape/dowry death/dacoity etc. can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right of the accused by invoking the powers contained under Sections 70(2) Cr.P.C. and 72(2) B.N.S.S. as a matter of right?”

The aforesaid question has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court under the following factual backdrop.

The learned Single Judge, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1947/2025 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Metropolitan-II in criminal case No. 15/2024 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting the non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant, was rejected, found the judgments of Coordinate Benches to have conflicting views. After referring the judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and another connected matter; Criminal Revision Petition No. 731/2021; Shyam Sunder Singhvi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. ; MANU/RH/0096/2020 and PC Purohit Vs. Union of India ; MANU/RH/0247/2025, the learned Single Judge held as under:-

22. On the same issue, conflicting views have been given by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, hence, it is difficult for this Court to follow a particular view i.e. either in favour or go against such economic offenders committing offences under the provisions of the PMLA/Customs Act/CGST Act and heinous offences punishable under IPC/BNS.

It was further held by the learned Single Judge as under:-

27. There is no exact and settled decision of this Court on the legal issue involved in this petition, rather there are conflicting opinions and views of different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, hence, the same is required to be decided for all times to come, so that there should be uniformity in the orders on the said legal issue involved in these petitions.

28. In a situation like the present one, where two conflicting views have been taken by the different Co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court, this Court has no other option but to refer the matter to the Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.

Learned counsel Shri S.C. Gupta submits that no conflicting view has been expressed by this Court in any of the aforesaid three judgments or for that matter, in any of the two judgment. Other learned counsels also adopted the same submission.

Heard. Considered.

In the case of Girdhar Gopal Bajaria (Surpa), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:-

“Therefore, learned court below was legally justified in issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners as the offence for which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, is an economic offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the order relating to issuance of non bailable warrants has been passed without taking into consideration the entire relevant facts and circumstance of the case.

As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (supra), it is the duty of the trial court that there must be a proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, before non-bailable warrant is issued. It has also been held that there cannot be any straightjacket formula for issuance of warrant, as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with commission of an offence of heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is l