Arjun Amarjeet Rampal Vs Income Tax Department & Anr (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court has quashed a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued by a lower court against actor Arjun Amarjeet Rampal in a case filed by the Income Tax Department. The High Court found that the offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for which the warrant was issued, is bailable in nature, and the Magistrate’s order lacked proper reasoning.
The petition, filed under Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), initially challenged both the order dated December 5, 2019, issuing process against Rampal, and the subsequent NBW order dated April 9, 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. However, during the hearing before the Vacation Court, the petitioner’s counsel restricted the prayer to challenge only the NBW order.
The NBW was issued against Mr. Rampal for an offence punishable under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to wilful attempt to evade payment of tax, penalty, or interest.
Key Arguments by Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel informed the High Court that on the day the NBW was issued (April 9, 2025), Mr. Rampal’s advocate had already filed a Vakalatnama on his behalf along with an application seeking exemption from appearance for that date. However, the learned Magistrate rejected this exemption application with the observation that the accused had failed to comply with the bail provisions.
The primary contention raised by Mr. Rampal’s counsel was that the offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act carries a maximum sentence of only three years and is, by its very nature, a bailable offence. This point, the counsel asserted, was not disputed by either party.
It was argued that despite this legal position, the learned Magistrate had “mechanically passed the order issuing the non-bailable warrant” without taking into consideration the bailable nature of the offence. The counsel further highlighted that the order was “cryptic” and “lacked application of mind” as no reasons were recorded for rejecting the exemption application and issuing the NBW. The counsel also pointed out that Mr. Rampal’s advocate was present in court when the order was passed, a fact that was allegedly overlooked by the Magistrate.
The petitioner contended that such an order would cause prejudice, as it resulted in a non-bailable warrant being issued for a bailable offence.
Revenue’s Stance: The learned counsel for the revenue, while seeking time for further instructions, fairly conceded that they would not oppose the limited relief sought by the petitioner at that stage, i.e., setting aside the NBW.
