Bombay High Court
ANUP SHRIRAM AGASHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The authorities did not err in rejecting the arms licence application as the petitioner still faced a pending criminal prosecution, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, an advocate and political activist, applied for an arms licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, but the District Magistrate rejected the application citing pending criminal prosecutions. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act, which was also dismissed. He argued that he had been acquitted in two of the three cases and only one prosecution remained pending, and that his professional duties required the licence. The High Court examined the authorities' reliance on the three prosecutions and found no error in the rejections, noting that the pending case still disqualified the petitioner. The Court directed that the petitioner may file a fresh application after the remaining case is resolved and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the existence of pending criminal prosecutions disqualifies an applicant from obtaining an arms licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959.
- Whether acquittal in some of the prosecutions removes the disqualification and obliges the authority to grant the licence.
- Whether the authorities erred in rejecting the petitioner's application and appeal.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 13, 18
Subjects
- Arms licence
- Section 13
- Section 18
- pending prosecution
- acquittal
- writ petition
- High Court
- Bombay
- Aurangabad
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43040-DB
1
16 WP 3919 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
16 WRIT PETITION NO. 3919 OF 2023
ANUP SHRIRAM AGASHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Mr. A. D. Hande, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent-State
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 21st September 2026
P.C. :-
. An application under Section 13 of the Arms Act 1959
was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority.
The said application came to be turned down by the authority
citing reason of pendency of criminal prosecutions against the
petitioner. The order came to be passed on 12.10.2020 by the
District Magistrate, Nanded. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an
appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1959 was taken up by
the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner which also
came to be turned down vide order dated 07.06.2024. As
against both the orders, the petitioner is before this Court.
2
16 WP 3919 OF 2023
2. Mr. A. D. Hande, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and
conducts his professional work at Nanded as also at
Aurangabad. He would submit that, since the petitioner is
engaged in defending accused persons in criminal cases and is
also holding a post in political party, he apprehends insecurity
to his life. He further submits that the petitioner is also the
Joint Editor of weekly newspaper namely “Karmajit (कर्मजित)”
and hence, he was bound to leave his house/office even in the
midnight to solve the social issues. It is submitted that the
petitioner often carries huge cash with him and has to travel
to various places on account of social work. In the writ
petition, it is stated that the petitioner is Chief Editor of
“Dainik Earth”. Therefore, he submits that the application filed
by the petitioner was justified and ought to have been allowed
and the respondent-authority ought to have granted an arms
license to the petitioner under the Act.
3. Learned AGP would advocate the reasoning rendered by
the authorities under the Act while rejecting the petitioner’s
application.
3
16 WP 3919 OF 2023
4. From the record placed before me, it appears that the
authorities have referred to three criminal cases in which the
petitioner was facing prosecution. On query, Mr. Hande,
learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is now acquitted in Crime No.255 of 2008. He submits that
the petitioner is also acquitted in the prosecution arising out
of Crime No.34 of 2009. He further submits that the
prosecution arising out of Crime No.60 of 2011 is still
pending.
5. Considering the reasons recorded by both the
authorities under the Act, I do not find any error committed
by the authorities while rejecting the petitioner’s application.
6. Since the authorities had referred to three prosecutions,
out of which two are no more, the petitioner is at liberty to
file fresh application after his acquittal in the third
prosecution. In the event such application is filed, the
authorities shall consider the same on its own merits and in
the light of the then prevailing circumstances.
7. With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW
Checking your session…