TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2(2) B.N.S.S. as a matter of right?" The aforesaid question has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court under the following factual backdrop. The learned Single Judge, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1947/2025 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Metropolitan-II in criminal case No. 15/2024 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting the non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant, was rejected, found the judgments of Coordinate Benches to have conflicting views. After referring the judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and another connected matter; Criminal Revision Petition No. 731/2021; Shyam Sunder Singhvi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.; MANU/RH/0096/2020 and PC Purohit Vs. Union of India; MANU/RH/0247/2025, the learned Single Judge held as under:- 22. On the same issue, conflicting views have been given by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, hence, it is difficult for this Court to follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of non-bailable warrant should be avoided, but in this case, coming to a prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offence under Sections 3/4 of the PML Act, the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the alleged crime and has issued non-bailable warrants against them. xxx xxx xxx xxx So far as the staying of the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PML Act is concerned, without commenting upon detailed merits of the cognizance order, it would suffice to hold that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any prima facie case for staying the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken against them. Looking to the various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that severity of the offence for which a cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and other relevant factors, the trial court has discretion to issue non-bailable warrants. Keeping in mind that the cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under the PML Act against the petitioners, which is an economi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties and the trial court may also not be influenced/inhibited, by the observations made by this court and the trial court shall proceed independently in accordance with the law. No cost." Thus, in the aforesaid case, since, the learned Court below had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for conversion of nonbailable warrant into bailable warrant taking into account the nature of allegations levelled against the accused-petitioners and the role played by them, amongst others, the Court found no error in the orders passed by the Court below. However, no view was expressed as to whether an economic offender can claim, as a matter of right, conversion of non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C or Section 72(2) of the B.N.S.S. Similarly, in the case of P.C. Purohit (Supra), it was held by the learned Single Judge as under:- 36. The allegation against the accused petitioner and the co-accused is that they have evaded the GST of amount around Rs. 2,000 Crores. On a query put forth by the Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor replied that the accused petitioner and co-accused have paid the GST amounting to Rs. 1077 Crores. The petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able under IPC/BNS, can claim, as a matter of right, conversion of nonbailable warrant into bailable warrant under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. or under Section 72(2) B.N.S.S. much less the conflicting views as the judgments were delivered based on the specific facts of each case. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the reference requires no answer. The learned Single Judge may decide the matter on its merit. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Per ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. (concurring) 1. Finding three different contradictory orders, passed by three different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Girdhar Gopal Bajoria (supra), Shyam Sunder Singhvi (supra) & PC Purohit (supra), the Single Bench has formulated the above referred question of law and referred the same to the Special/Larger Bench to answer. 2. Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Girdhar Gopal Bajoria (supra), a challenge has been made to the impugned order 12.07.2021 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, PMLA, 2002/Special Judge CBI Cases No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I by which cognizance was taken against the accused persons t....