In a sharp rebuke to a trial court, the Bombay High Court has set aside a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in an alleged 2019 tax-evasion case, describing the lower-court order as “mechanical” and “cryptic.” The Vacation bench of Justice Advait Sethna ruled on 16 May that the magistrate had acted “contrary to law” when he ordered Rampal’s arrest under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, which punishes wilful attempts to evade tax, penalty or interest.
The High Court stressed that the offence carries a maximum three-year jail term and is therefore bailable, eliminating any legal basis for an NBW. According to court filings, Rampal’s advocate had filed a written motion seeking exemption from personal appearance on 9 April 2025, the day the magistrate nonetheless rejected the plea and authorised police to arrest the actor. Justice Sethna observed that the magistrate failed to record even “minimal reasons,” branding the directive “a textbook example of non-application of mind.”
Rampal’s legal team, led by advocate Swapnil Ambure, argued that the actor had already paid the entire tax demand for FY 2016-17, albeit belatedly, and that no element of intentional evasion remained. Ambure further told the High Court that both the December 2019 summons and the April 2025 warrant violated Supreme Court precedents mandating that trial courts favour summons over arrest in financial-crime prosecutions unless the accused is absconding or obstructing justice.
Accepting those submissions, Justice Sethna ruled that issuing an NBW for a bailable, non-violent economic offence would create “unwarranted prejudice” and erode public confidence in procedural fairness. The judge also underlined that Rampal’s counsel was physically present when the warrant was signed, underscoring the absence of any flight risk.
Received a GST Notice? Don’t Panic! – Click Here
The bench therefore annulled the warrant and restored Rampal’s liberty, reassuring that coercive processes must remain the exception, not the rule, in tax litigation.
Legal experts say the decision will likely influence future tax-evasion prosecutions across India. Section 276C(2) cases often hinge on delayed payments rather than outright concealment, and courts have repeatedly cautioned revenue authorities against criminalising tardiness.
By reiterating that bailability determines the correct procedural path, the High Court has provided fresh ammunition for defendants seeking to quash over-zealous warrants and to demand stricter judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial requests.
The ruling follows the Supreme Court guidance from Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand and subsequent judgments, which require magistrates to balance the need for investigation with an accused’s constitutional right to liberty.
Observers note that celebrity defendants, while high-profile, remain entitled to the same safeguards as ordinary citizens, and that sensationalization of arrests can undermine the integrity of economic-crime enforcement.
With the NBW nullified, Rampal now faces no immediate threat of arrest. The High Court has scheduled the matter for 16 June 2025, when it will hear arguments on whether the Income-tax Department’s complaint itself should survive.
Until then, the 51-year-old actor can resume professional commitments while his lawyers prepare to seek either discharge or further relief. The case, meanwhile, stands as a reminder that procedural rigor and judicial oversight are pivotal to India’s tax-justice system.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
