Arms licence cannot be refused solely on a criminal case absent demonstrated threat to public safety.

The petitioner, a builder and Director of Bigrahpuram Developers Pvt. Ltd., applied on 17 January 2023 for an arms licence for an N.P. bore revolver/pistol, claiming apprehension of danger while travelling for business purposes.

Although the police enquiry, including the report of the S.H.O., Jakkanpur, recommended grant of the licence, the District Magistrate, Patna rejected the application by order dated 3 August 2023, communicated through Memo No. 2731 dated 4 August 2023.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna on 30 April 2024.

The authorities relied substantially on the pendency of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502/2021 under Sections 447, 427, 379, 354, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.

The petitioner was subsequently acquitted in that criminal case on 23 February 2024, before the appellate order was passed.

He also relied on his arms-shooting training certificate and contended that the rejection order contained no adequate reasons.

Whether the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner were justified in refusing the arms licence substantially on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, particularly when he had been acquitted before the appellate order was passed?

Whether the impugned orders were legally sustainable in the absence of recorded, objective reasons demonstrating that grant of the licence would endanger public peace or public safety?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for reconsideration of his arms-licence application on the basis of a fresh police report and the subsequent acquittal?

The Court applied Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, under which an arms licence may be refused where refusal is considered necessary for the security of public peace or public safety, and Section 17 concerning variation, suspension or revocation of licences.

It also referred to Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, relied upon by the licensing authority in considering the application.

The Court held that citizens do not possess a fundamental right to bear arms; possession and carrying of firearms in India constitute a regulated statutory privilege.

Nevertheless, decisions refusing or revoking an arms licence cannot be based on vague allegations, whim or caprice and must contain recorded, objective reasons showing a genuine threat to public peace or safety.

Mere registration or pendency of a routine criminal case is ordinarily insufficient, absent evidence of active misuse, violence or a direct threat to public safety.

Police reports and threat assessments must be meaningfully evaluated, and an applicant cannot be denied solely because he lacks a specific or imminent threat.

The Court further stated that safety-training requirements under Rule 10(3) of the Arms Rules, 2016 cannot be insisted upon unless notified by the Central Government.

The Court found that the rejection by the District Magistrate and its affirmance by the Divisional Commissioner rested substantially on the pendency of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502/2021.

That basis had materially changed because the petitioner had been acquitted on 23 February 2024, before the Commissioner decided the appeal on 30 April 2024.

In view of the requirement that refusal of an arms licence be supported by objective reasons relating to public peace or safety, reliance merely on the pending criminal case, without a fresh assessment of the petitioner’s circumstances and the effect of the acquittal, was insufficient.

The Court therefore held that both orders were unsustainable, but did not itself direct the grant of a licence.

Instead, it required the competent authority to reconsider the application after obtaining a fresh police report and considering the petitioner’s occupation, business-related travel and asserted need for self-protection.

The District Magistrate, Patna, was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s arms-licence application in light of a fresh police report, the petitioner’s acquittal, and the nature of his work as a builder and businessman requiring travel and self-protection.

The application was to be decided within three months from the date of filing a copy of the judgment.

The Court did not itself grant the arms licence.