Arjun Rampal has received relief from the Bombay High Court, which quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against him in a 2019 tax evasion case. The court slammed the local magistrate’s order as “mechanical and cryptic,” with Vacation Judge Justice Advait Sethna noting on May 16 that it was “contrary to law” and issued without proper consideration.
NBW Challenged Over Procedural Lapses
According to a report published in News18, Rampal had challenged the magistrate’s April 9 order that issued a non-bailable warrant against him in a case filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act — a provision that deals with willful attempts to evade tax payments, penalties, or interest.
In his plea, Rampal argued that his advocate had requested an exemption from appearance, which the magistrate denied before issuing the NBW.
HC Points to Bailable Nature of Offence
The Bombay High Court observed that the alleged offence against Arjun Rampal is bailable and carries a maximum sentence of three years, making the issuance of a non-bailable warrant inappropriate. Justice Advait Sethna criticised the magistrate’s order as “mechanical” and “cryptic,” noting it lacked any reasoning or application of mind. The court further pointed out that issuing an NBW in a bailable offence, especially when Rampal’s advocate was present in court, was prejudicial to the actor.
Arjun Rampal has also challenged the magistrate’s notice issued in December 2019 in connection with the case. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the next hearing for June 16.
No Evasion, Just Delayed Payment, Says Rampal’s Lawyer
Rampal’s advocate, Swapnil Ambure, argued that the full tax amount for the financial year 2016–17 had been paid, though delayed, and maintained there was no tax evasion as alleged by the department. He further contended that issuing a non-bailable warrant went against Supreme Court rulings, which discourage such action in similar cases.
NBW Challenged Over Procedural Lapses
According to a report published in News18, Rampal had challenged the magistrate’s April 9 order that issued a non-bailable warrant against him in a case filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act — a provision that deals with willful attempts to evade tax payments, penalties, or interest.
In his plea, Rampal argued that his advocate had requested an exemption from appearance, which the magistrate denied before issuing the NBW.
HC Points to Bailable Nature of Offence
The Bombay High Court observed that the alleged offence against Arjun Rampal is bailable and carries a maximum sentence of three years, making the issuance of a non-bailable warrant inappropriate. Justice Advait Sethna criticised the magistrate’s order as “mechanical” and “cryptic,” noting it lacked any reasoning or application of mind. The court further pointed out that issuing an NBW in a bailable offence, especially when Rampal’s advocate was present in court, was prejudicial to the actor.
Arjun Rampal has also challenged the magistrate’s notice issued in December 2019 in connection with the case. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the next hearing for June 16.
No Evasion, Just Delayed Payment, Says Rampal’s Lawyer
Rampal’s advocate, Swapnil Ambure, argued that the full tax amount for the financial year 2016–17 had been paid, though delayed, and maintained there was no tax evasion as alleged by the department. He further contended that issuing a non-bailable warrant went against Supreme Court rulings, which discourage such action in similar cases.
You may also like
Doing hard work to fulfil my dream not to become CM: Prashant Kishor
90 more US-deported migrants repatriated to Venezuela
Mumbai Metro Lines 2A & 7 Emerge As Lifeline Amid Pre-Monsoon Chaos, Carry 2.65 Lakh Commuters
Paedophiles and other sex criminals will be castrated in brutal new crackdown
Palghar Murder Solved: Seven Held Including Minor In Brutal Killing Of 36-Year-Old Man
