Recently, the Gujarat High Court dealt with a sensational case involving an alleged fake arms licence network operating across states through manipulation of official government records and online portals. The case concerns allegations that forged arms licences were generated by tampering with data on the Government of India’s NDAL-ALIS portal and were subsequently used for procuring revolvers, pistols, firearms and live cartridges on a large scale.
The matter came before the High Court in an anticipatory bail application filed by one Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh, a government servant working as a weapon clerk, who was accused of being part of the alleged racket. The FIR had been registered by ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the forged licences were generated from an office at Etah in Uttar Pradesh between 2019 and 2022. During investigation, it allegedly surfaced that the accused persons, including a co-accused advocate, a computer operator, a clerk and the present applicant, misused unique identification numbers (UINs) on the NDAL-ALIS portal to alter official records. The investigating agency alleged that details of previously issued genuine licences, including names, validity and territorial particulars, were deleted from the official database and replaced with forged information to create bogus arms licences.
The prosecution further claimed that around Rs.98.32 lakh was received through cash and banking transactions from several persons arrested from Ahmedabad in connection with the racket. It was also alleged that the accused persons facilitated procurement of arms from a gun house in Uttar Pradesh using twelve forged licences and that arms and cartridges had been recovered during the investigation.
Counsel appearing for the Applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged offence. It was submitted that the acts complained of were actually committed by a computer operator who had access to the office portal and passwords. The defence contended that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly three years and stressed that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. It was also argued that custodial interrogation was not required and that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by the Court.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that despite issuance of notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the applicant failed to join the investigation or cooperate with the investigating agency. The prosecution submitted that the applicant had actively participated in forging licences and tampering with official government data while working as a weapon clerk. The State further pointed out that similarly placed co-accused persons had already been denied anticipatory bail and that one co-accused remained in custody. It was additionally contended that the applicant was absconding and had been shown in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet.
After considering the material placed on record, the High Court observed that the investigation prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement in editing licence data using UIN numbers and transferring forged licences to Gujarat. The Court also took note of the fact that despite notices being issued through the Collector, Etah, the applicant allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Court further observed that the applicant had been shown as an absconder in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet and referred to several Supreme Court decisions dealing with anticipatory bail pleas filed by absconding accused persons.
In a significant observation, the Court remarked that “The present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest.”
The Court also reproduced observations of the Supreme Court highlighting the seriousness of economic offences and the limited scope for grant of anticipatory bail in such cases, “Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases.”
Dealing with the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and observed that absence of custodial interrogation alone cannot become a ground for grant of anticipatory bail when serious allegations and a prima facie case exist against the accused.
Ultimately, the High Court held that considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the applicant’s alleged non-cooperation and the possibility of tampering with evidence, it was not a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. The anticipatory bail application was accordingly dismissed, though the Court clarified that its observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court while deciding any future regular bail application.
Case Title: Upendra Kumar Jaypalsinh v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 11058 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. D.S. Gadhvi
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :