MUMBAI, May 22 -- The Bombay High Court has set aside a non-bailable warrant issued against actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 tax evasion case, calling the lower court's order "mechanical" and passed without proper application of mind. Rampal had approached the High Court seeking relief from a December 2019 order of the Mazgaon Magistrate, which directed the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him in a case initiated by the Income Tax (IT) Department. The department had accused the actor of wilfully evading advance tax of Rs.42.41 lakh for the assessment year 2016-17. Through counsel Swapnil Ambure and advocate-on-record Ameet Naik and Madhu Gadodia of Naik & Naik, Rampal contended that the warrant was illegal and unjustified, as the offence was bailable and punishable by a maximum of three years in prison. According to the case documents, on May 13, 2018, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., which had contracted Rampal, informed him of a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Zee paid Rs.32.40 lakh on Rampal's behalf and notified him of the payment. Despite this, the IT department froze Rampal's HDFC Bank account on February 12, 2019, warning the bank manager of personal liability in case of any transactions. A show-cause notice followed on February 18, asking Rampal to explain why prosecution should not be initiated under the Income Tax Act. Rampal admitted that taxes were unpaid at the time of filing the return but cited financial difficulties, submitting cash flow statements from 2016 to 2018. His petition argued that while there was a delay in payment, there was no intent to evade, a legal requirement for prosecution. The magistrate's order initiating prosecution and issuing a non-bailable warrant was challenged in the High Court. Rampal argued that no bail conditions had been imposed earlier, and the warrant was a violation of procedure. Justice Advait Sethna, hearing the matter on the vacation bench, agreed with 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....