Patna High Court

Amitav Bachchan RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH RITESH KUMAR

Holding

A mere pending criminal case, absent any evidence of misuse or threat to public safety, does not justify suspension of an arms licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Summary

The appellant, Amitav Bachchan Ray, held a valid arms licence (No. 2776/NH/KNA) which was later suspended by the District Arms Section on the ground of a pending liquor‑smuggling case unrelated to the firearm. The appellant challenged the suspension before the Commissioner, who upheld it, and subsequently filed a writ petition that was dismissed by a Single Judge who labeled him a smuggler. On appeal, the High Court examined whether mere pendency of a criminal case, without any evidence of misuse of the licensed weapon or threat to public peace, suffices under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 to justify suspension. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court held that suspension requires concrete material showing a danger, and that the licensing authority had not demonstrated any such ground. Consequently, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, directed the restoration of the licence, and declared the suspension arbitrary and unlawful.

Issues considered

Whether the mere pendency of a criminal case unrelated to the licensed firearm can justify suspension of an arms licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Whether the licensing authority complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Arms Rules, 2016 in suspending the licence.
Whether an indefinite suspension without specific material showing threat to public peace or safety is permissible.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 17(1)(3)(b)(d), 17(3)
Arms Rules, 2016 — s. Form III, Schedule III
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(A), 38, 47

Subjects

arms licence
suspension
Section 17
Arms Act
pending criminal case
public peace
licensing authority
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
procedural fairness
arbitrary action

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.809 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7091 of 2023
======================================================
Amitav Bachchan Ray, male, aged about 39 years, Son of Upendra Ray,
Resident of Village- Terasiya, Police Station - Ganga Bridge, District -
Vaishali.

... ... Appellant
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. In-charge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Ganga Bridge Police Station, District- Vaishali at
Hajipur.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Date : 16-01-2026

Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior

counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Gajendra Kumar

Singh, and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG-3 for the

Respondents-State assisted by Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
2/9

AC to AAG-3.

2. The present intra court appeal has been filed

challenging the order dated 02.01.2024, passed by learned

Single Judge of this Court, in CWJC No.7091 of 2023, whereby

the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Collector,

Vaishali at Hajipur had issued an arms licence bearing Licence

No. 2776/NH/KNA for one N.P. bore Pistol in favour of the

appellant. The said licence was duly inspected from time to time

and renewed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the

appellant purchased the licensed arm and it is not the case of the

authorities that the same was ever misused by him.

Subsequently, the appellant was made an accused in Ganga

Bridge P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018 dated 15.10.2018, instituted

under Sections 30(A), 38 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and

Excise Act, 2016. In the said case, the appellant was granted bail

by the competent court on 18.01.2019. 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 said show-cause on 08.11.2019,

specifically stating that he had never misused the licensed arm.

The In-charge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali, by order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
3/9

dated 31.12.2019, suspended the arms licence of the appellant

with immediate effect. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant

preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,

Muzaffarpur, against the order dated 31.12.2019. The learned

Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that no

interference was warranted with the order of suspension. The

appellant thereafter approached this Court by filing CWJC No.

7091 of 2023, which also came to be dismissed by the learned

Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the

writ petition observed as follows:

“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.
3. In such view of the matter, I do not find any
illegality in the order dated 25.01.2023 passed
by the Commissioner. Accordingly, this writ
application stands dismissed.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the suspension of the appellant’s arms licence is based solely on

the pendency of a criminal case and not on any independent or

objective satisfaction regarding threat to public peace or safety,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
4/9

which is 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 is also urged that the licence has been suspended for an

indefinite period, which is 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.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits

that none of the conditions governing possession, carrying or

use of arms reliance as mandated by the Arms Rules, 2016 has

been violated by the appellant. There is 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 have not been violated, and as such the

cancellation of the arms license of the appellant is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
5/9

for the appellant further relies upon the Full Bench Judgment of

this Court in Kapildeo Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR

1987 Pat 122, wherein paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as

under:

“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.”

8. Relying on the aforesaid case, learned counsel
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
6/9

for the appellant submits 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.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed

by the learned Single Judge. In support of his submissions, he

places reliance upon paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed

by them, which reads as under:

“4….The appeal preferred by the appellant is
not maintainable either in law or facts both in
view of the fact that the appellant has been
made accused in connection with Ganga Bridge
P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018 under Sections
30(a)/38/37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act 2016 which comes under the organized
crime, Section 17(1)(3)(b)(d) of the Arms Act,
1959 empowers the licensing authority if there
is apprehension of security of public peace or
for public safety can suspend/ Revoke the
licence.”

10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the

basis of the aforesaid, submits that the action taken by the

licensing authority as well as the order passed by the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
7/9

Single Judge are fully justified and call for no interference by

this Court. The learned counsel for the state further submits that

issuance of Arms license is considered to be a privilege, and it is

not a right.

11. Upon careful consideration of the submissions

advanced by both the parties and the materials on record, 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).

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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
8/9

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.

15. In view of the discussions made above, 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.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.809 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
9/9

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.)

(Ritesh Kumar, J.)

Gaurav Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 19.01.2026
Transmission Date N.A.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…