Can Arrest Warrants in Economic Offences and Heinous Crimes Be Converted into Bailable Warrants? Rajasthan HC Refers Matter to Larger Bench [Read Order]
resolved by a Larger Bench to ensure uniformity in judicial orders. The Court observed that conflicting views by coordinate Benches on a point of law must be
The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has referred a fundamental question of law to a Larger Bench regarding the convertibility of arrest warrants (Non-Bailable Warrants) into bailable warrants in cases involving serious economic offences or heinous crimes.
Nirmal Kumar Sharma (Petitioner) had challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) that rejected his application under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants.
The Petitioner was facing a complaint under the CGST Act and the Customs Act for alleged tax evasion of approximately ₹10.65 Crores.
Also Read:Conditional Bail Granted by Allahabad HC in ₹35 Crore GST Tax Evasion Case Noting Four-Month Custody [Read Order]
The core issue was: Whether arrest warrants issued against an accused in cases involving economic offences (such as tax evasion) or heinous offences can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right.
The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the offence was punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment and was triable by a Magistrate so arrest was not strictly required. The counsel relied on the judgment in P.C. Purohit vs. Union of India, where a coordinate Bench allowed the conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants in a similar economic offence case.
The respondent opposed the conversion, terming the act as a "heinous economic offence" that causes huge loss to the public exchequer. The respondent cited an earlier, contrary judgment of a coordinate Bench in Girdhar Gopal Bajoria vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, which had rejected the conversion of non-bailable warrants in a PMLA case.
The respondent argued that economic offences should be viewed seriously and that the P.C. Purohit ruling failed to consider the binding nature of the Girdhar Gopal Bajoria precedent.
The bench comprising Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that while the Supreme Court has consistently held that economic offences must be dealt with a different, strict approach due to their grave impact on the national economy.
The High Court faced a dilemma due to contradictory rulings that the Girdhar Gopal Bajoria view, which rejected the conversion, citing the serious nature of economic offences.
Know How to File Appeals in GSTAT
On the other hand, the P.C. Purohit view, which allowed the conversion, noting that the sheer amount of evasion cannot be the sole ground for dismissal when the accused is ready to join the trial.
The Court observed that judicial decorum and legal propriety mandate that where coordinate Benches hold conflicting views, the matter must be referred to a Larger Bench for a final, settled decision.
Accordingly, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Special/Larger Bench to answer the following seminal question:
“Whether the arrest warrants issued against the accused committing economic offence or heinous offences like murder/rape/dowry death/dacoity etc. can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right of the accused by invoking the powers contained under Sections 70(2) Cr.P.C. and 72(2) BNSS as a matter of right?”
Also Read:GST Commissioner may Authorize Arrest w/o Assessment Order in S.132 Offences if Reasons Established to Degree of Certainty: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]
Therefore, the court referred the matter to the Chief Justice. Thus the petition was disposed of in above terms.
Telegram for Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on quick updates
