Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Nirmal Kumar Sharma, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order dated March 11, 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants. A complaint had been filed against the petitioner under Section 132(1)(B)(C)(L) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 132(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging tax evasion. The petitioner argued that the tax evasion amount was only Rs. 6 Lakhs, arrest was not required, and he was willing to appear through summons or bailable warrants. The respondent contended that the tax evasion amounted to Rs. 10,65,23,833/-, a serious economic offense, and arrest warrants were justified, citing previous judgments of the High Court.

Held

The Court noted that there were conflicting opinions from different coordinate benches of the High Court on the legal issue. It acknowledged the seriousness of economic offenses involving large sums of money and their impact on the nation's economy. The Court found no substance in the petitioner's argument that the offense being punishable with five years imprisonment and triable by a Magistrate automatically entitled him to bail or conversion of arrest warrants. The Court emphasized that each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, considering the nature of the accusation and evidence. Citing precedents regarding judicial discipline and the binding nature of decisions by larger or co-equal benches, the Court concluded that a definitive and settled decision on the issue was lacking. Therefore, to ensure uniformity and resolve the controversy, the Court referred the matter to a Special/Larger Bench to answer the framed question.

Key Issues

1. Whether arrest warrants issued against an accused for economic offenses or heinous crimes can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right by invoking Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 72(2) BNSS? The petitioner argued that the alleged offense under Section 132 of the CGST Act is punishable with five years imprisonment and triable by a Magistrate, thus arrest is not required. He relied on the judgment in P.C. Purohit Vs. Union of India. The petitioner sought conversion of arrest warrants to bailable warrants, essentially seeking anticipatory bail in warrant form. The respondent argued that the tax evasion amount of Rs. 10,65,23,833/- constitutes a heinous economic offense. They contended that a coordinate bench had previously rejected similar petitions in Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and M/S Agribiotech Industries Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, which was not brought to the notice of the bench in P.C. Purohit. The respondent relied on Union of India and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor, asserting that the earlier view should prevail.