The Bombay High Court has quashed a local court order issuing a non-bailable warrant against actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 tax evasion case, terming the order "mechanical and cryptic". A vacation bench of Justice Advait Sethna on May 16 further said that the magistrate's order was "contrary to law" and passed without application of mind.
Rampal had moved HC challenging the April 9 order passed by a magistrate's court issuing a non-bailable warrant against him in a 2019 case initiated by the I-T department for an offence under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
This section pertains to a person willfully attempting to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest.
As per the actor's plea, his advocate had submitted an application before the magistrate seeking exemption from appearance. However, the court rejected it and issued a non-bailable warrant against Rampal, it said.
In the order, Justice Sethna noted that the offence for which Rampal has been accused carries a maximum punishment of three years and is a bailable offence.
The magistrate's court has not considered this and has "mechanically" passed the order issuing a non-bailable warrant against the actor in a bailable offence, the HC said.
It added that the magistrate's court had not even recorded any reasons before issuing the non-bailable warrant. "In my view, it is a cryptic order which lacks application of mind," Justice Sethna said.
The high court said issuing a non-bailable warrant in a case of a bailable offence would cause prejudice to the actor. It further added that the magistrate overlooked the fact that the actor's advocate was present in court.
Rampal had also challenged a December 2019 order of the magistrate's court issuing him a notice in the case. The high court posted the matter for further hearing on June 16.
Rampal's advocate Swapnil Ambure argued in court that the magistrate's orders of both December 2019 (issuance of notice) and April 2025 (issuance of non-bailable warrant) were wrong and arbitrary.
"The full tax amount for the financial year 2016-17 in question was paid but in a delayed manner. There is no evasion of tax as alleged by the department in their complaint," Ambure told HC.
He also said that the non-bailable warrant issued by the local court was in contravention of judgments of the Supreme Court, which says courts should not resort to issuing warrants in such matters.
Rampal had moved HC challenging the April 9 order passed by a magistrate's court issuing a non-bailable warrant against him in a 2019 case initiated by the I-T department for an offence under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
This section pertains to a person willfully attempting to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest.
As per the actor's plea, his advocate had submitted an application before the magistrate seeking exemption from appearance. However, the court rejected it and issued a non-bailable warrant against Rampal, it said.
In the order, Justice Sethna noted that the offence for which Rampal has been accused carries a maximum punishment of three years and is a bailable offence.
The magistrate's court has not considered this and has "mechanically" passed the order issuing a non-bailable warrant against the actor in a bailable offence, the HC said.
It added that the magistrate's court had not even recorded any reasons before issuing the non-bailable warrant. "In my view, it is a cryptic order which lacks application of mind," Justice Sethna said.
The high court said issuing a non-bailable warrant in a case of a bailable offence would cause prejudice to the actor. It further added that the magistrate overlooked the fact that the actor's advocate was present in court.
Rampal had also challenged a December 2019 order of the magistrate's court issuing him a notice in the case. The high court posted the matter for further hearing on June 16.
Rampal's advocate Swapnil Ambure argued in court that the magistrate's orders of both December 2019 (issuance of notice) and April 2025 (issuance of non-bailable warrant) were wrong and arbitrary.
"The full tax amount for the financial year 2016-17 in question was paid but in a delayed manner. There is no evasion of tax as alleged by the department in their complaint," Ambure told HC.
He also said that the non-bailable warrant issued by the local court was in contravention of judgments of the Supreme Court, which says courts should not resort to issuing warrants in such matters.
