In Amitav Bachchan Ray vs. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Ritesh Kumar delivered a 9-page long judgement dated January 16, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "....the present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.01.2024 passed in CWJC No. 7091 of 2023 is set aside. Accordingly, the suspension of the appellant’s arms license is set aside and the licensing authority is directed to restore the appellant’s arms license.".
The Court observed:"13. The State authorities have also failed to show any violation on the part of the appellant of the rules or conditions governing the issuance of arms license or possession of arms and ammunition. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 enumerates specific grounds on which an arms license may be suspended or revoked. A plain reading of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 with the Arms Rules, 2016 clearly indicates that no provision thereof has been violated by the appellant in the present case. Furthermore, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, under which the appellant has been made as an accused, does not contain any express provision mandating the suspension or revocation of an arms license merely on account of such accusation. 14. Any precautionary suspension done by the authorities must be based on concrete material showing a potential threat to public peace or safety. A prolonged or indefinite suspension without any material showing misuse or danger renders the action of the respondent authorities arbitrary and unsustainable in law."
The intra court appeal was filed challenging the order dated January 2, 2024, passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the High Court Court, whereby the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition.
In Amitav Bachchan Ray vs. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Sandeep Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated January 2, 2024, wherein, he observed:"In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, in Arms Appeal Case No.186 of 2022, by which the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the In-charge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali whereby and whereunder the arms license of the petitioner has been suspended. 2. It seems that the petitioner is a smuggler involved in smuggling of liquor. The arms license of the petitioner has been suspended because of pending cases of liquor smuggling against him. Such criminals do not deserve any sympathy from this Court." He concluded:"....I do not find any illegality in the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed."
The brief facts of the case was that the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur had issued an arms licence bearing Licence for one N.P. bore Pistol in favour of the appellant. The licence was duly inspected from time to time and renewed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the appellant purchased the licensed arm and it was not the case of the authorities that the same was ever misused by him. Subsequently, the appellant was made an accused in a Ganga Bridge P.S. Case of 2018 dated October 15, 2018, instituted under Sections 30(A), 38 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. In the case, the appellant was granted bail by the competent court on January 18, 2019. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Incharge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali at Hajipur. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause on November 8, 2019, specifically stating that he had never misused the licensed arm. The In-charge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali, by order dated December 31, 2019, suspended the arms licence of the appellant with immediate effect.
Aggrieved by the suspension of the arms licence, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, against the order dated December 31, 2019. The ommissioner, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference was warranted with the order of suspension. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court in 2023, which also came to be dismissed by the Single Judge.
The counsel for the appellant submitted before the Division Bench that the suspension of the appellant’s arms licence was based solely on the pendency of a criminal case and not on any independent or objective satisfaction regarding threat to public peace or safety, which was a mandatory requirement under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant was granted a valid arms licence after due verification, the same was regularly renewed, and there is no allegation at any stage that the licensed arm was ever used or misused by him. Even in the criminal case registered against the appellant, the licensed weapon is not alleged to have been used. It was also urged that the licence was suspended for an indefinite period, which was impermissible in law. Mere registration of a criminal case cannot lead to branding the appellant as a criminal or smuggler, particularly in the absence of any adjudication of guilt.He also submitted that none of the conditions governing possession, carrying or use of arms reliance as mandated by the Arms Rules, 2016 was violated by the appellant. There was no allegation that the appellant carried the weapon in a manner contrary to the Rules and Regulations specified by the Central or the State government. Conditions mandated under Form III, Schedule III of the Arms Rules, 2016 were not violated, and as such the cancellation of the arms license of the appellant was not sustainable in the eyes of law. He relied upon paragraph 11 of the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court in Kapildeo Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1987 Pat 122.
The judgment reads:“11. A strong note of caution, however, must be sounded in this context. It is not the pendency of any and every criminal case which would inflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of a licence validly granted. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to the most horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency of the former may hardly provide an adequate basis under Section 17(3), in the case of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation such action may. well become necessary. Equally, the use or employment of the licensed weapon in the alleged crime might well be a relevant and added factor for consideration in the exercise of the discretion by the licensing authority. There is no gainsaying that licensed weapons are not to be allowed to degenerate into crime weapons. It bears repetition that Sub-section (3) puts the matter in the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority and inevitably the issue cannot be put in the procrustean bed of a precise definition or an exhaustive enumeration of situations in which such discretion may be exercised.”
The counsel for the appellant submitted that since the licensed arm was neither used nor misused and no material exists to show any apprehension to public peace or safety, the suspension of the appellant’s arms licence is arbitrary, mechanical and contrary to law.
Justice Sudhir Singh who authored the judgement observed:"....it is evident that the arms licence issued in favour of the appellant has never been misused. The criminal case registered at Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018 pertains to the seizure of 18,000 litres of illicit liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the appellant has already been granted bail. Importantly, the licensed firearm has no connection with the alleged offence and has not been used or employed in any manner in relation to the criminal case. 12. This Court is of the view that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for suspension or revocation of an arms licence. This view finds support from paragraph 11 of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Kapildeo Singh (supra)."
No comments:
Post a Comment