Court holds that refusal based solely on a pending criminal case cannot survive after acquittal; directs District Magistrate to reconsider application on fresh police report.
Patna, Sept. 23, 2026: The Patna High Court has set aside the rejection of an arms licence application filed by a builder-businessman, holding that the authorities could not rely solely on the pendency of a criminal case when the applicant had already been acquitted before the appellate order was passed.
Justice Alok Kumar, hearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14364 of 2024, quashed both the District Magistrate’s order dated August 4, 2023 and the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order dated April 30, 2024, which had refused the petitioner’s request for a licence for an N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol.
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, stated that he is a builder and director of a private company and that he required a firearm for self-protection due to his frequent travel and business-related movement. He had applied for an arms licence in January 2023. Police verification, including reports from the local SHO and the SSP, had recommended grant of the licence. Despite this, the District Magistrate rejected the request, citing a criminal case pending against him.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the rejection order was arbitrary because it did not contain proper reasons and was based mainly on the existence of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502 of 2021. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had later been acquitted of all charges by judgment dated February 23, 2024, before the appellate authority decided the matter. The petitioner further submitted that he had undergone arms shooting training and had a genuine need for protection.
The State defended the rejection, arguing that the licensing authority was empowered under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, to refuse a licence if necessary for public peace or safety. It was contended that the orders were based on relevant material and were legally valid.
The High Court, however, reiterated that while there is no fundamental right to bear arms in India, the grant or refusal of an arms licence must still be based on objective reasons and statutory safeguards. The Court emphasized that vague allegations, generalized assumptions, or mere pendency of a routine criminal case cannot justify refusal unless there is some demonstrable threat to public peace or safety.
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s acquittal had already taken place before the appellate order was passed, making the foundation of the rejection unsustainable. In these circumstances, the Court held that both impugned orders could not stand.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the District Magistrate’s rejection order and the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order. It directed the District Magistrate, Patna, to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, after obtaining a fresh police report and taking into account the petitioner’s occupation and claim of self-protection. The authority has been asked to take a decision within three months from the date of filing a copy of the court’s order.
Bottom Line :
Arms Act, 1959 - Refusal of arms licence cannot be sustained solely on basis of pendency of criminal case when applicant has subsequently been acquitted - Authorities must record objective reasons showing danger to public peace or safety - Mere absence of specific threat is not by itself a ground to deny licence - Orders of District Magistrate and appellate authority quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Statutory provision(s): Arms Act, 1959 Section 14(1)(b)(ii), Arms Act, 1959 Section 17, Arms Rules, 2016 Rule 12(3)(a), Arms Rules, 2016 Rule 10(3), Constitution of India Article 226
Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984581
