Discretion Over Entitlement: Rajasthan HC Clarifies Rules on Warrant Conversion

In a significant ruling for criminal jurisprudence in Rajasthan, a Larger Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has brought clarity to the contentious issue of converting non-bailable arrest warrants into bailable ones. The Court held that there is no absolute "right" for an accused to demand such a conversion under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or Section 72(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).

The Backdrop: A Question of Conflict

The matter reached the Larger Bench after a Single Judge expressed difficulty in reconciling seemingly conflicting judgments from Co-ordinate Benches. The core question posed to the Bench was: “Whether the arrest warrants issued against the accused committing economic offence or heinous offences... can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right...?”

The Single Judge had noted concerns surrounding cases designated as economic offenses (such as PMLA or GST violations) and heinous crimes, suggesting that past rulings lacked uniformity.

Forensic Examination of Precedents

The Larger Bench, comprised of Justices Mahendar Kumar Goyal, Anoop Kumar Dhand, and Bhuwan Goyal, conducted a meticulous review of three influential judgments: Girdhar Gopal Bajoria , Shyam Sunder Singhvi , and P.C. Purohit .

Upon analysis, the Court concluded that the previous rulings were strictly fact-specific. In P.C. Purohit , for example, the court exercised inherent jurisdiction based on the fact that the accused had paid a substantial GST amount of ₹1,077 crores and had actively cooperated with investigators. The Larger Bench clarified that these cases did not lay down a legal principle granting a "vested right" for warrant conversion, but rather exercised judicial discretion based on evolving circumstances.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores that the issuance or modification of warrants remains a matter of judicial assessment rather than a mechanical mandate. The court emphasized:

• On the nature of discretion: "There cannot be any straightjacket formula for issuance of warrant... Issuance of non-bailable warrant should be avoided, but [it is a matter of] arriving at a prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offence."
• On consistency: "No view has been expressed by any of the learned Single Judges as to whether an economic offender... can claim, as a matter of right, conversion of non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant."
• On the duty of Trial Courts: Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Inder Mohan Goswami , the Court reaffirmed that Trial Courts must ensure proper scrutiny of facts and full application of mind before issuing such warrants, but must also treat economic offenses on a different footing given their societal impact.

The Verdict: Judicial Prerogative Upheld

Ultimately, the Bench ruled that the reference required no answer as there was no underlying conflict of law; the previous decisions were simply reflections of differing factual matrices.

By declining to create an "automatic right" for warrant conversion, the High Court has reinforced the position of Trial Courts. Judges remain empowered to assess the merits of an individual's plea for bail or warrant modification based on the gravity of the allegations, the accused's conduct, and the specific mandates of the statutes under which they are charged. This decision provides a clear directive: legal processes intended to secure the presence of an accused in serious criminal matters cannot be bypassed through a claim of absolute right.