Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant for Bailable Offence under Income Tax Act

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that issuing a non-bailable warrant for a bailable offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, which carries a maximum punishment of three years, is contrary to law when done without application of mind.

Arjun Amarjeet Rampal, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai.

By this order, the Magistrate had issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in connection with Case No. 466/SW/2019 for an alleged offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the offence under Section 276C(2) is bailable in nature, and the maximum punishment prescribed is only three years. They pointed out that on the same date, the petitioner’s advocate had filed a vakalatnama and an application seeking exemption from personal appearance.

However, the Magistrate rejected the exemption on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with bail conditions and went on to issue a non-bailable warrant.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was passed without recording any reasons and that the presence of the advocate on record was overlooked. They submitted that this had caused undue prejudice in a case where such a harsh step was not warranted under the law.

The counsel for the Income Tax Department did not oppose the limited relief sought by the petitioner, which was restricted to quashing the non-bailable warrant.

The Vacation Court, presided over by Justice Advait M. Sethna, observed that the offence under Section 276C(2) is indeed bailable and the Magistrate had passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons. The court explained that such an order lacked application of mind and was inconsistent with the nature of the offence.

The court observed that the non-bailable warrant was issued despite the presence of the petitioner’s lawyer and the filing of the exemption application.

The court quashed and set aside the order dated 9 April 2025, issuing the non-bailable warrant. It clarified that the ongoing proceedings before the Magistrate on merits would continue in accordance with law.

As to the petitioner’s challenge to the earlier order dated 5 December 2019 regarding the issuance of process, the court directed that the matter be placed before the regular bench for further hearing on 16 June 2025. The department was directed to file a reply before the next date with an advance copy to the petitioner’s advocate.