The Bombay High Court, on Thursday, quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 tax evasion case, noting that the order was ‘cryptic’ and passed ‘without application of mind.’

Vacation judge Justice Advait M Sethna hearing the case, noted that the order against Arjun Rampal is “a cryptic order which lacks application of mind,” which “would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the given the facts and circumstances as he would face an order of non bailable warrant in a case of bailable offence,” Bar and Bench reported.

Arjun Rampal had approached the High Court seeking relief from a December 2019 order of the Mazgaon Magistrate, which ordered for the issue of a non-bailable warrant against him in a case initiated by the Income Tax (IT) Department.

What was the case against Arjun Rampal

Arjun Rampal, known for his roles in movies such as Don (2006), Om Shanti Om (2007), and Raajneeti (2010), is facing prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to willful attempts to evade tax payments. It carries a maximum sentence of three years, and is bailable in nature.

The Income Tax Department had accused the actor of deliberately dodging a tax bill of ₹42.41 lakh for the assessment year 2016–17. According to Arjun Rampal however, upon receiving the notice, production giant Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd —which had hired him—stepped in and cleared ₹32.40 lakh on his behalf on May 13, 2018. Still, the IT Department wasn’t convinced. On February 12, 2019, they froze Rampal’s HDFC Bank account and issued a stern warning to the bank manager: no transactions were to go through, as per legal news agency Live Law.

Matter listed for hearing on June 16

During the hearing at the Bombay High Court, Arjun Rampal argued that no bail conditions had been imposed earlier, and the warrant was a violation of procedure.

Justice Advait Sethna found merit in Rampal’s arguments, observing that the trial court’s order was “cryptic” and prejudicial. The High Court quashed the warrant, noting that the proceedings lacked legal justification given the bailable nature of the offence.

The matter is now listed for hearing on June 16, 2025, reported Live Law and Bar and Bench.