In a significant judicial development, the Bombay High Court, on May 16, 2025, quashed a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in connection with a 2019 tax evasion case. The warrant had been issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, on April 9, 2025, after rejecting an application for exemption from appearance filed by Rampal's advocate. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the necessity of judicial application of mind, especially when dealing with bailable offenses.
The case against Arjun Rampal pertains to allegations of willful tax evasion under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section deals with the willful attempt to evade tax, interest, or penalty, and prescribes a maximum sentence of three years. Crucially, the offense under this section is bailable, meaning that the accused has the right to be released on bail. Despite this, the magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against Rampal, a move that the High Court later found to be legally untenable.
Justice Advait Sethna, serving as the Vacation Judge, presided over the matter in the High Court. In his judgment, he noted that the magistrate's order was "cryptic" and lacked any recorded reasons for issuing the NBW. The judge emphasized that such an order, especially in the context of a bailable offense, demonstrated a lack of application of mind and could cause undue prejudice to the accused. He stated, "On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that no reasons are recorded. In my view, this would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances as he would face an order ... ."
The High Court's scrutiny revealed that the magistrate had not considered the bailable nature of the offense under Section 276C(2) while issuing the NBW. Furthermore, the presence of Rampal's advocate in court, who had sought exemption from personal appearance, was overlooked. Justice Sethna observed that the magistrate's decision was mechanical and contrary to established legal principles. He remarked, "The Magistrate, not taking into consideration such position, ... This observation highlights the necessity for judicial officers to exercise discretion judiciously and not in a perfunctory manner.
The High Court's decision to quash the NBW was based on the principle that judicial orders must be reasoned and should reflect a conscious application of mind, especially when they have the potential to infringe upon an individual's liberty. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant in a ... involving a bailable offense, without adequate justification, was deemed to be an overreach of judicial authority. The court's intervention serves as a reminder of the checks and balances inherent in the legal system to prevent arbitrary actions.
In addition to quashing the NBW, the High Court addressed another aspect of Rampal's plea, which sought to quash the process issued against him on December 5, 2019. However, the court noted that the Income Tax Department had requested time to obtain proper instructions to respond to this part of the plea. Consequently, the court did not make any observations on this matter and clarified that the proceedings before the magistrate would continue in accordance with the law. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for June 16, 2025.
The background of the case involves allegations by the Income Tax Department that Arjun Rampal willfully evaded paying taxes amounting to Rs. 42.41 lakh for the assessment year 2016–17. Upon receiving a notice from the department, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., which had contracted Rampal, paid Rs. 32.40 lakh on his behalf on May 13, 2018. Despite this payment, the department ordered the freezing of Rampal's HDFC Bank account on February 12, 2019, and issued a show-cause notice on February 18, 2019, asking him to explain why prosecution should not be initiated under the Income Tax Act.
The High Court's decision in this case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the necessity for judicial officers to exercise their discretion within the bounds of the law. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant in a ... involving a bailable offense, without adequate reasoning, not only undermines the rights of the accused but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system. This judgment serves as a precedent for ensuring that legal procedures are followed meticulously and that the rights of individuals are protected against arbitrary actions.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's quashing of the non-bailable warrant against Arjun Rampal in the 2019 tax evasion ... reaffirms the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding individual liberties. The judgment highlights the necessity for judicial officers to apply their minds diligently and to provide reasoned orders, especially when the liberty of an individual is at stake. As the legal proceedings continue, this case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of procedural propriety and the protection of fundamental rights within the Indian legal system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.