A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a builder and Director of Bigrahpuram Developers Pvt. Ltd. challenging the rejection of his application for grant of an arms licence for a non-prohibited bore revolver/pistol.

The petitioner had applied for an arms licence on 17.01.2023, stating that due to the nature of his business and frequent travel during day and night, he apprehended threat to his life and property. The petitioner claimed that the police verification report was favourable, with the SHO, Jakkanpur recommending grant of the licence, which was subsequently forwarded by the SSP, Patna.

However, the District Magistrate, Patna rejected the application, primarily relying on the pendency of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502/2021 registered under Sections 447, 427, 379, 354, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. The rejection was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the criminal case could not justify rejection of the licence application, particularly since he had already been acquitted of the charges by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Patna on 23.02.2024. The State defended the rejection, submitting that under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, the licensing authority could refuse a licence where necessary for maintaining public peace or public safety.

The High Court reiterated that possession of firearms in India is not a fundamental right but a regulated privilege under the Arms Act, 1959. However, it held that such statutory discretion must be exercised on relevant material and cannot be based on mere assumptions. The Court observed:

“Mere involvement or registration of a routine FIR against an applicant or license holder is generally an insufficient ground for outright cancellation or refusal unless active misuse, violence, or a direct threat to public safety is demonstrated.”

The Court further held that police verification reports and threat assessments must be considered conclusively rather than being accepted or rejected through generalized assumptions.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the rejection of the petitioner's application was substantially based on the pendency of the criminal case. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted in that case before the Divisional Commissioner passed the appellate order affirming the rejection.

The High Court accordingly held that the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner were unsustainable and quashed both orders.

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Patna to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh after obtaining a fresh police report and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a builder and businessman who requires self-protection due to the nature of his work.

The application was directed to be decided within three months.

Case: Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14364 of 2024

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Government Pleader 22.