Issuing A Non-Bailable Warrant Mechanically In A Bailable Offence Is Contrary To Law: Bombay High Court

Bombay HC Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Arjun Rampal , Calls Magistrate's Order "Cryptic"

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against actor Arjun Rampal in a case filed by the Income Tax Department, ruling that the trial court's order was passed mechanically and without application of mind.

Justice Advait M.Sethna , presiding over a vacation bench, emphasized that issuing a coercive measure like an NBW in a bailable offence without providing reasons is contrary to law and causes prejudice to the accused.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from a criminal complaint (CC No. 466/SW/2019) filed by the Income Tax Department against Mr. Rampal , alleging an offence punishable under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The process was initially issued against the actor on December 5, 2019.

The immediate issue arose on April 9, 2025, when the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, rejected an exemption application filed on behalf of Mr. Rampal and issued an NBW against him. The Magistrate's order noted that the accused had failed to comply with bail provisions.

Mr. Rampal , through his counsel, challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, seeking urgent relief from the non-bailable warrant.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Submissions: Mr. Rampal 's counsel, Mr. Swapnil Ambure, argued that the Magistrate's order was flawed. He pointed out that an advocate had filed a Vakalatnama for Mr. Rampal on the said date and was present in court. Furthermore, they had filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. The counsel stressed that the offence under Section 276C(2) of the IT Act is bailable, with a maximum punishment of only three years. Therefore, issuing an NBW was an excessively harsh measure.

Respondent's Stance: The counsel for the Income Tax Department sought time to take instructions but fairly conceded to the limited relief sought by the petitioner at this stage, not opposing the cancellation of the NBW.

High Court's Observations and Ruling

The High Court found significant merit in the petitioner's arguments. Justice Sethna , in a decisive order, highlighted several key legal failings in the Magistrate's decision.

The court noted that the offence is undisputedly bailable. In his judgment, Justice Sethna observed:

"The learned Magistrate however not taking into consideration such position, has mechanically passed the order issuing the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in a bailable offence. On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that no reasons are recorded. In my view, it is a cryptic order which lacks application of mind."

The court further pointed out that the Magistrate overlooked the fact that Mr. Rampal was duly represented by his advocate when the order was passed. It concluded that such a "cryptic order" would cause prejudice to the petitioner.

Final Decision and Future Proceedings

Based on these findings, the Bombay High Court passed the following order:

1. The order dated April 9, 2025, issuing the non-bailable warrant against Arjun Rampal , is quashed and set aside .
2. The main proceedings before the Magistrate concerning the tax case shall continue on merits in accordance with the law.

The High Court clarified that the other prayers in the petition, specifically the challenge to the initial issuance of process from December 2019, will be heard by the regular court on June 16, 2025. The Income Tax Department has been directed to file a reply before the next hearing date.