Social Media Pic with Weapon can't lead to Arms Act FIR, Rules HC

Recently, in a significant intervention addressing misuse of criminal law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stepped in to examine whether mere social media photographs could sustain prosecution under the Arms Act. The case raised serious questions about criminal liability based on digital content, with allegations that licensed weapon holders had allowed unauthorised use, an issue the Court scrutinised closely before arriving at its conclusion.

The case arose when photographs posted on Facebook showed a third person posing with multiple firearms, allegedly linked to the petitioners, who are political figures. Acting on these images and a disclosure statement, the police initiated proceedings under Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, claiming unlawful possession and unauthorised transfer of weapons. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the case lacked any allegation of illegal possession, misuse, or intent, and was built entirely on photographs without proof of actual delivery or control of weapons. It was further contended that the prosecution was selectively targeted and driven by political rivalry, as others appearing in similar photographs were not proceeded against.

The Court found the prosecution fundamentally flawed, noting that essential ingredients of the alleged offences were missing. It observed that there was no material to show unlawful possession or “delivery” of weapons to the co-accused, nor any indication of criminal intent. The Bench held that “for the commission of an offence, there must be the existence of mens rea,” adding that there was neither any instance nor allegation suggesting intent to facilitate an illegal act. The Court also noted a discriminatory investigation and observed that the case appeared to be influenced by political considerations.

Consequently, holding the proceedings to be an abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR against the petitioners.

Case Title: Bajrang Dass And Anr. vs. State Of Haryana And Anr.

Case No.: CRM-M-30985-2021

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Surya Partap Singh

Advocate for the Petitioner:  Adv. Anil K. Sokal, Adv. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. Akshat Dalal, Adv . Shlok Dalal

Advocate for the Respondent: AAG Aditya Pal Singh,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com