Conversion of non-bailable warrants is not a vested right; prior rulings were fact-specific and consistent.

Earlier decisions on conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) CrPC or Section 72(2) BNSS were found to be fact-specific and not to establish any vested right in the accused. One case upheld non-bailable warrants in an economic offence context, another rejected challenge to warrants after considering the allegations and the accused's role, and a third permitted conversion only on its peculiar facts while exercising inherent jurisdiction. No inconsistent legal principle emerged from these rulings, so no conflicting view was found and the Larger Bench found no legal question requiring an answer, leaving the reference to be decided on merits by the Single Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier decisions cited before the Larger Bench laid down any conflicting legal view on the claim that an accused can, as a matter of right, seek conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 72(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Analysis: The earlier decisions were examined and found to have turned on their own facts and the respective circumstances in which warrants were issued or relief was granted. One decision upheld non-bailable warrants in the context of economic offences and declined stay of the warrants. Another rejected the challenge to the warrants after considering the nature of allegations and the role of the accused. The third allowed conversion of warrants on the peculiar facts of that case while exercising inherent jurisdiction, but without laying down any general principle that such conversion is a vested right. On that basis, no inconsistent rule of law emerged from the cited cases.

Conclusion: No conflicting view was found, and no legal question required an answer from the Larger Bench; the reference was left for the Single Judge to decide on merits.

---