Patna High Court

Raj Kishore SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The Court held that the licensing authority’s discretion under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) must be exercised based on concrete, material facts and cannot be predicated on vague, speculative concerns of public peace or safety.

Summary

The petitioner, Raj Kishore Singh, applied for an arms licence in 2011 which was initially rejected by the District Magistrate, Buxar despite a favourable police verification report. The matter was remanded by the Divisional Commissioner, who directed a fresh decision considering Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and relevant rules, but the magistrate again rejected the licence on vague grounds of public peace and safety. The petitioner challenged both the magistrate's and the Commissioner’s orders by filing a writ petition. The High Court examined the statutory framework, particularly Section 14(1)(b)(ii) and Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2016 Arms Rules, and held that the licensing authority’s discretion must be exercised judiciously based on concrete material, not on speculative public safety concerns. Finding the rejections arbitrary and not supported by the police reports, the Court set aside both orders and directed the District Magistrate to grant the licence within two months. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the District Magistrate’s refusal to grant an arms licence under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 was justified in the absence of concrete threat evidence.
Whether the licensing authority exercised its discretion in compliance with the statutory criteria of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
Whether the grounds of ‘public peace’ and ‘public safety’ cited by the magistrate constitute a valid reason for refusal under the Act.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 13, 14

Subjects

arms licence
Arms Act
Section 14
public safety
police verification
discretionary power
writ jurisdiction
Article 21

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3229 of 2024
======================================================
Raj Kishore Singh Late Dhenuki Singh Resident of Village- Bararhi, P.O.-
Bhadwar, P.S.- Bagengola, District- Buxar

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The Collector of District, Buxar, District-Buxar.
4. The Superintendent of Police Buxar, District-Buxar.
5. The Dy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon, District-Buxar.
6. The S.H.O., Bagengola Police Station, District,Buxar.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 24-04-2026

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ application for

quashing the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Patna in Arms Appeal No. 39 of 2021 whereby

the appellate authority has affirmed the order dated 25.11.2019

passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar in Arms Case No. 205

of 2011 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of

arms licence. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction

upon the respondent-licensing authority to grant arms licence in

his favour.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had

applied for grant of arms licence in the prescribed format in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
2/17

year 2011 before the District Magistrate, Buxar. The said

application was forwarded for police verification pursuant to

which the officer-in-charge of Bagengola Police Station

conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 03.02.2015

stating therein that the petitioner has sufficient reason for grant

of arms licence and for protection of his life and property

recommended that the petitioner may be issued arms licence for

N.P. bore rifle. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police vide

letter dated 740 dated 24.02.2015 forwarded the police

verification report along with all relevant documents to the

District Magistrate, Buxar stating therein inter alia that no

adverse record was found against the petitioner. It was further

noted that the petitioner is engaged in agricultural activities and

frequently travels to Buxar carrying substantial cash giving rise

to reasonable apprehension regarding his personal safety and

property. Further case of the petitioner is that despite favourable

police verification report, positive recommendation and

admitted absence of any criminal antecedent, the District

Magistrate, Buxar rejected the application of the petitioner vide

order dated 23.02.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not

have threat perception and therefore there existed no sufficient

reason for grant of arms licence. Reference has been made in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
3/17

that connection to the direction of Ministry of Home vide letter

no. 3026 dated 31.04.2010.

3. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred Arms

Appeal No. 163 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner,

Patna. The Arms Appeal was decided by the learned Divisional

Commissioner, Patna vide its order dated 29.01.2019 /

29.03.2019 and the application for arms license of the petitioner

was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Buxar with a

direction to take a fresh decision in the light of Section 13 & 14

of the Arms Act, 1959, judgments of the Hon’ble High Court in

respect of issuance of arms license and various directions of the

State government regarding issuance of arms license. The

Divisional Commissioner, Patna thus directed the District

Magistrate, Buxar to decide the matter after hearing the

appellant / petitioner and after calling an up-to-date police

report regarding the character of the petitioner and to take a

decision accordingly.

4. After remand, a fresh police verification report was

called for by the District Magistrate, Buxar. The police report

was submitted through Superintendent of Police, Buxar vide

letter no. 3608 dated 01.09.2019 having no adverse entries

against the petitioner. The report further stated that petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
4/17

uncle had been killed by naxalites in the year 1987 in respect of

which an F.I.R. was lodged at Bagengola Police Station. The

annual income of the petitioner is approximately Rs. 4,00,000/-

and if licence is given to the petitioner the petitioner does not

pose any threat to social harmony or public peace.

5. Despite favourable police verification report, the

District Magistrate, Buxar once again rejected the petitioner’s

application vide order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Arms Case

No. 205 of 2011. The rejection primarily was based on the

ground that the incident referred to in the police report had

occurred nearly twenty years ago and that the S.H.O.,

Bagengola Police Station has reported no existing or imminent

threat to the petitioner from any quarter. The petitioner failed to

establish any present threat perception to his life and property.

Accordingly, upon consideration of the police report, the

petitioner’s application was rejected taking help of Section

14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959. In the rejection order it was

also observed that issuance of arms licence without specific

justification may lead to unnecessary proliferation of arms

thereby adversely affecting pubic peace and public security.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Arms Appeal No. 39

of 2021 before the Commissioner, Patna Division, however, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
5/17

said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated

20.06.2023 on the same and similar ground without proper

appreciation of materials available on record and the relevant

provisions of the Arms Act including the laws laid down by the

Hon’ble High Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the

provisions of the Arms Act and the precedence. It is contended

that the authorities have passed the orders in a mechanical

manner without proper application of mind on the ground of

absence of threat perception and on the ground that the

petitioner failed to establish any present danger to his life and

property. The rejection is founded on vague and general

consideration of “public safety” and “public peace”. Mere non-

existence of imminent current threat cannot by itself be a ground

to disentitle an applicant for grant of arms license. The statutory

scheme does not mandate proof of imminent danger rather it

requires reasonable justification from grant of licence.

7. It is further submitted that findings recorded by the

District Magistrate, Buxar as affirmed by the appellate authority

that the petitioner should not be permitted to have a gun licence

because there would be threat to “public peace” and “public
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
6/17

safety” is not based on any evidence. The licensing authority

has assumed that as if the petitioner would get arms licence, he

will disturb “public peace” and safety whereas the authorities

have failed to appreciate that the petitioner has a clean

antecedent, no criminal case is pending against him and no

adverse material has been found during police verification. The

police verification report clearly records that the petitioner is not

likely to pose any threat to public peace and social harmony. It

has also been noted therein that petitioner’s uncle was killed by

naxalite. Despite existence of such favourable materials on

record, the authorities have arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s

application for grant of licence.

8. It is next argued that the petitioner is engaged in

agricultural activities and frequently travels to Buxar while

carrying substantial amount of cash in connection with his

occupation thereby exposing himself to potential risk and giving

rise to reasonable apprehension regarding his life and personal

safety.

9. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this court in

the case of Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the

Commissioner, Patna Division & Ors reported in 2015(4)

PLJR 212.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
7/17

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued

that since the petitioner is not having any threat perception, the

application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence has rightly

been rejected by the District Magistrate, Buxar. It is further

contended that considering the requirement of maintaining

“public peace” and ensuring “public safety”, the licensing

authority has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for

grant of arms licence. The appellate authority has rightly

affirmed the order and no interference is warranted under writ

jurisdiction.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the materials on record including the impugned

orders.

12.The Divisional Commissioner, Patna while remanding

the matter back before the District Magistrate, Buxar at the first

instance on 29.01.2019 / 29.03.2019 directed the District

Magistrate, Buxar to decide the petitioner’s application for

licence in light of Section 13 & 14 of the Arms Act, 1959,

judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in respect of

issuance of arms license and Government’s direction in this

regard. Section 13 of the Arms Act prescribes the ways and

means for grant of licence whereas Section 14 of the Arms Act
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
8/17

talks about refusal of licence.

13. For ready reference, Section 14 of the Arms Act is

quoted hereinbelow:-

14. Refusal of licences.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the

licensing authority shall refuse to grant-

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5

where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited

arms or prohibited ammunition;

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,-

(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the

licensing authority has reason to believe-

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for

the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession

or carrying any arms or ammunition; or

(2) to be of unsound mind; or

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this

Act; or

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for

the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to

grant such licence.

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any

licence to any person merely on the ground that such person

does not own or possess sufficient property.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a

licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
9/17

such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief

statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority

is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to

furnish such statement.

14. Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act does not give

unlimited discretion to the licensing authority to exercise his

discretion on the basis of his subjective satisfaction. The

exercise of discretion must be judicious considering the

attending facts and materials available on record, particularly

when the discretion given to the licensing authority is not

unlimited and the grounds for rejection of licence have

explicitly been given in the Act.

15. In the present case the District Magistrate, Buxar has

rejected the application of the petitioner for the second time on

25.11.2019 primarily on the ground that issuance of licence to

the petitioner may create unnecessary arms proliferation

affecting “public peace” and ‘public safety”. The Arms Rules,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Rules”) came into

force and has been enforced prescribing the guidelines which

are to be followed by the licensing authority while proceeding to

consider grant or refusal of licence. Rule 12 of 2016 Rules

along with sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) are relevant for the

purpose of the present case inasmuch as the present case relates
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
10/17

to grant of licence for permissible arms and ammunition

specified in Category- 3 of Schedule- 1 of the said Rules. The

same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain

cases. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every

licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to an

individual for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition

as specified in category 1(b) and 1(c) or category III

respectively in Schedule I, shall have due regard to the

application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3).

(3) For grant of a licence for the permissible arms or

ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without

prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-

section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the

police report and on his own assessment, may consider the

applications of-

(a) any person who by the very nature of his business,

profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect

his life and/or property; or

(b) any dedicated sports person being active member

for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association,

licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport

shooting for target practice in a structured learning process;

оr

Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
11/17

Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life

and/or property.”

16. Under the third schedule along with the relevant

format meant for grant of license also indicates that apart from

the conditions for grant of license under the Act and the Rules,

the information given in the said forms have to be considered.

The relevant form requires an applicant to clearly mention the

purpose for which the license is required.

17. As per sub rule 3(a) of Rule 12 extracted hereinabove

the licensing authority based on police report and on his own

assessment may consider an application of a person who by the

very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has

genuine requirement to protect his life and / or property. Thus, it

is clear that while deciding the application for grant of licence

the licensing authority apart from the conditions mentioned in

Section 13 & 14 of the Arms Act has to consider the provisions

of Rule 12(3)(a) also where the very purpose of the acquisition

of arms has to be assessed by the licensing authority on the basis

of a police report or on his own assessment.

18. In the present case the petitioner in Form-A of

Schedule-III has disclosed his profession as “agriculture” and

has also mentioned the need for license as “threat to life and

property”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
12/17

19. The police report of Superintendent of Police, Buxar

submitted before the District Magistrate, Buxar dated

24.02.2015 at the first instance said that there was no adverse

entry against the petitioner. The petitioner is engaged in

agricultural activities in relation to which he has to travel

frequently to Buxar having substantial amount of money which

gives rise to threat to his life and property and accordingly

forwarded the application form of the petitioner with the

aforesaid recommendation for necessary action before the

District Magistrate, Buxar.

20. After remand, by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna

in the year 2019, another police report was submitted

specifically stating therein that if arms licence is given to the

petitioner, the same would not create any law and order

problem. The aforesaid report of police authority along with

forwarding letter of Superintendent of Police, Buxar dated

01.09.2019 is the part of present writ application.

21. In the present case, two police reports were submitted

at different time. The first one was submitted in the year 2015

with a positive recommendation that the petitioner can be issued

gun licence for protection of his life, property and security.

22. This court is conscious of the prevailing reality that
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
13/17

crimes rates are raising and it is neither feasible nor practicable

for the state to provide security to every citizen. It is true that

right to possess or carry firearm is not a fundamental right but a

statutory right governed by the provisions of Arms Act, 1959

and the Rules, however, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that

right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has

been interpreted to include within its fold the right to live with

dignity, personal autonomy and a sense of security over one’s

body and property. The right of an individual to feel secure, to

protect his family and property from antisocials and to live

without constant apprehension of harm forms an intrinsic part of

Article 21 while this does not translate into an enforceable

fundamental right to obtain an arms license. Such constitutional

values cannot be rendered irrelevant while exercising statutory

discretion under the Arms Act.

23. It is relevant to discuss the empirical data as per

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India in its publication titled “Crime in

India, 2023” (Volume-I), under Chapter-1, Table 1A.5

pertaining to special and local laws crimes crime head- wise

and State / UT wise has furnished data relating to arms related

offences. The said statistics reveal that in the State of Bihar, out
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
14/17

of total 3,972 arms related crimes, only 07 incidents involved

licensed arms, whereas an overwhelmingly majority of 3,965

cases were attributable to illegal or unlicensed arms. This data

clearly demonstrates that the misuse of legally licensed arms

constitutes a negligible fraction of the total arms- related

offences and the actual threat to public peace and public safety

primarily emanates from illegal / unlicensed weapons rather

than duly licensed firearms.

24. In the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 the District

Magistrate, Buxar while rejecting the application for grant of

licence has given the reason that the Superintendent of Police,

Buxar has not given his clear opinion and merely forwarded the

police report of Sub Inspector of Bagengola Police Station and

S.D.P.O., Dumraon and further grant of licence will create

unnecessary proliferation of arms adversely affecting “public

peace” and “public safety ”.

25. The words “public peace” or “public safety” do not

mean ordinary disturbance of law and order. Public safety

means safety of the public at large and not safety of a few

persons only. In such circumstances, a blanket or mechanical

denial of arms licence on vague apprehension of public safety

without any empirical data and contrary to the two police
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
15/17

reports would not only be contrary to the statutory scheme but

would also fail to give due weight to an individual statutory

rights. Though the right to carry firearms cannot be directly read

into Article 21, consideration of public safety, security and

reasonable apprehension must meaningfully inform the decision

making process of the licensing authority.

26. In the case at hand the police has taken note of the

profession of the petitioner as required under sub-rule 3(a) of

Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules and in its first report has

recommended for grant of licence in favour of the petitioner

considering the nature of his profession. Second police

verification report categorically records that the petitioner is not

likely to pose any threat to “public peace” or “public safety”.

27. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar forwarded the

positive report of the concerned Police Station as well as

S.D.P.O., Dumraon to the District Magistrate, Buxar without

any adverse comment which goes to show that the

Superintendent of Police, Buxar had no objection for issuance of

arms licence to the petitioner, as such, the ground taken by the

licensing authority in its order that the Superintendent of Police,

Buxar has just forwarded the police report without his comment

is inconsequential. The licensing authority does not possess
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
16/17

unlimited discretion, a free hand to apply a straight jacket

formula in every case while rejecting the request for grant of

licence rather it is incumbent upon it to consider the nature of

profession, trade calling for the purpose of grant of licence

which situation has now been taken care of under sub rule 3(a)

of Rule 12 of 2016 Rules.

28. It is incumbent upon the licensing authority to

consider the attending facts and circumstances of each case

independently taking into account the information provided by

the person seeking arms licence in Form-A, the police report

and the own assessment of licensing authority. The assessment

of licensing authority must be based upon cogent material and it

is not subjective satisfaction of the authority. The discretion

must be judicious and should not be contrary to the materials

available on record.

29. In view of the above mentioned discussions on facts

as well as law, the impugned order dated 25.11.2019

and the appellate order dated 20.06.2023 passed by District

Magistrate, Buxar and Divisional Commissioner, Patna

respectively are set aside.

30. Since the petitioner is pursuing his case for grant of

licence since 2011 i.e. now for the last fifteen years, as such, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3229 of 2024 dt.24-04-2026
17/17

direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Buxar to consider

the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner in the light of the

aforesaid discussions within a period of two months from the

date of receipt / production of a copy of this judgment.

31. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this

application is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19-02-2026
Uploading Date 24-04-2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Brij Mohan Kumar Singh