By RUBY ZAIDI
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court on May 16 set aside a lower court’s decision to issue a non-bailable warrant against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in connection with a tax evasion case dating back to 2019.
Justice Advait Sethna, who presided over the matter, ruled that the offence in question was bailable under the law, thereby making the issuance of a non-bailable warrant legally unsustainable.
The matter stemmed from an order passed on April 9 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. In that hearing, the actor’s legal representative had filed an application seeking Rampal’s exemption from personal appearance in court.
However, the magistrate rejected the plea, citing that the actor had not complied with the conditions of bail and consequently issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest.
Arjun Rampal challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. After reviewing the case, Justice Sethna observed that the relevant provision under which Rampal was being prosecuted—Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act—pertains to a willful attempt to evade tax.
The judge emphasised that this section carries a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment, which by legal standards classifies the offence as a bailable one.
The High Court criticised the magistrate’s decision, calling it mechanical and lacking a legal basis. Justice Sethna noted that the magistrate had not properly applied his mind to the legal nature of the offence before issuing the non-bailable warrant.
According to the judge, the lower court failed to acknowledge that the offence was bailable and also neglected the presence and representation of the accused’s advocate during the proceedings.
Justice Sethna highlighted that the magistrate’s oversight of these crucial legal aspects rendered the April 9 order inconsistent with established principles of law.
He remarked, “The magistrate, not taking into consideration such a position, has mechanically passed the order… in a bailable offence.”
Furthermore, he added that the presence of Rampal’s advocate should have been taken into account before resorting to such a stringent measure as a non-bailable warrant.
In light of these observations, the High Court concluded that the magistrate’s order was legally flawed and quashed.
Justice Sethna stated that such an order, passed without due consideration of the legal provisions and facts, could not be sustained in law.
This judgment offers a reminder to judicial officers about the importance of carefully assessing the legal status of offences before passing coercive orders such as non-bailable warrants.
It also underscores the importance of respecting the procedural rights of accused individuals, including representation through legal counsel and exemption from appearance in appropriate circumstances.
