Consumer Commissions act as magistrate courts; bail lies before Sessions Court: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that when District, State or National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions try offences under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, they function as courts of Judicial Magistrate First Class, and any rejection of bail by such commissions can be challenged before the Sessions Court under the general criminal law.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that while the Consumer Protection Act provides a limited appellate mechanism against final orders of conviction, it does not create a bar on seeking bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court ruled that a bail application is distinct from a statutory appeal and is a facet of personal liberty that cannot be curtailed by procedural gaps in special legislation.

The court explained that Sections 72 and 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deem Consumer Commissions to be Judicial Magistrate First Class courts for the purpose of trying offences arising from non-compliance of consumer orders. However, while the Act provides an appeal only after conviction, it remains silent on remedies against interlocutory orders such as rejection of bail.

Filling this legislative vacuum, the High Court held that when a Consumer Commission rejects a bail application, the accused is entitled to approach the Sessions Court under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), and such applications must be decided on merits without questioning maintainability.

The court observed that denying such a remedy would result in indefinite detention without recourse, which would be contrary to constitutional safeguards of personal liberty.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the High Court examined a bail application filed by Sanjay Saxena, a deputy manager with Sahara Prime City Limited, who was lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur, following contempt proceedings before the Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

The consumer dispute arose from a complaint filed in 2019 by Pratibha Srivastava and her son Gaurav Srivastava, in which the Commission, by order dated August 16, 2021, directed Sahara Prime City Limited to refund over Rs.66 lakh with interest and compensation. Upon failure to comply, contempt proceedings were initiated, and Saxena was later arrested on warrants issued by the Commission.

His bail applications were rejected by the State Commission on the ground that the offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act is non-bailable. Challenging this rejection, Saxena approached the High Court.

Taking note that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 72 is three years and that the petitioner had already spent more than five months in custody, the High Court held that relegating him to approach the Sessions Court at this stage would be unduly harsh.

Exercising its concurrent jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to appropriate conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

—

Case Title
Sanjay Saxena vs State of Rajasthan & Others
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12106/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Anil Kumar Upman

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Harendra Singh
For the State: Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor