Jitendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 441 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jitendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                        2025:JHHC:17359


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W. P. (C) No. 1743 of 2025
         Jitendra Kumar, S/o Late Raghunath Bhagat, R/o Sakrogarh Mohalla,
         East Railway Cabin Gali, PO- Sahibganj, PS- Jirwabari O.P., District-
         Sahibganj.                                           .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
         1.The State of Jharkhand.
         2.The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.
         3.The Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Sahibganj.
         4.The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj.
         5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj.
         6.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sahibganj
                                          .           .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                    ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

        For the Petitioner (s) :          Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
                                          Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
        For the State                : AC to SC (Mines)-III
                                       Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines)-III
                    ......

02/ 01.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 has been upheld.

2. Petitioner is a practising Advocate at Civil Court, Sahibganj having enrolment No.JH-298/2015 and is representing his clients in high profile criminal cases and is consequently facing life threat from the anti-social elements.

3. An attempt of his life was made on 09.06.2018 while he was going to attend the Court, as a gang of persons pelted stones over him and in this regard, the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj was informed vide Letter dated 20.06.2018 [Annexure-1]. He also received life threat on his mobile from Mobile No.95721-97873 on different dates. It was against this backdrop that the petitioner applied for grant of licence of revolver which was rejected by the Respondent No.3 and appeal preferred against it has also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on bare perusal of the order of rejection, it demonstrates that rejection has been made under Rule 12 (2)(a) of Arms Rule, 1962. However, as per Category III

2025:JHHC:17359

of Schedule I of the Arms Rule, 2016, revolver comes under the category of permissible arms whereas Rule 12 (2)(a) is applicable for restricted arms which is detailed in Rule 12 (1)(c) of Arms Rule.

5. So far as permissible arms or ammunition in Category-D in Schedule I is concerned, Rule 12(3) provides that such application for licence be considered on the basis of Police report and on assessment and may consider it. The relevant part of Rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is quoted here-in-below :-

"12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain cases.─ (1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to an individual for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition as specified in category I(b) and I(c) or category III respectively in Schedule I, shall have due regard to the application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3). (2) For grant of a licence for the restricted arms or ammunition specified in category I(b) and I(c) in Schedule I, the licensing authority, may consider the application of─

(a) any person who faces grave and anticipated threat to his life by reason of -

(i) being resident of a geographical area or areas where militants, terrorists or extremists are most active; or

(ii) being the prime target in the eyes of militants, terrorists or extremists; or

(iii) facing danger to his life for being inimical to the aims and objectives of the militants, terrorists or extremists; or

(b) any Government official who by virtue of the office occupied by him or by the nature of duty performed by him and/or in due discharge of his official duty is exposed to anticipated risk to his life; or

(c) any Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, who by virtue of having close or active association with anti-

militant, anti-terrorist or anti-extremist programmes and policies of the Government or by mere reason of holding views, political or otherwise, exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life; or

(d) any family member or kith and kin of a person who by the very nature of his duty or performance (past or present) or position occupied in the Government (past or present) or even otherwise for known or unknown reasons exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life; or

(e) any other person, for any legitimate and genuine reason, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, by passing of a speaking order in this regard: Provided that before grant of a licence under this sub-rule, the licensing authority based on the recommendations of the district magistrate and of the State Government concerned and on examination of the police report and after conducting a separate verification from its own source, shall satisfy itself that the applicant requires such licence.

(3) For grant of a licence for the permissible arms or ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the police report and on his own assessment, may consider the applications of ─

(a) any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or

2025:JHHC:17359

(b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; or

(c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property."

6. By referring to these provisions, it is contended that having faced life threat, rejection of application for grant of licence was perverse.

7. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1246 of 2020.

8. Learned AC to SC (Mines)-III for the State fairly admits that there is wrong provision mentioned in the impugned order as the present case is with respect to Rule 12(3) and not with respect to Rule 12(2)(A). However, rejection has been made on the basis of the Police report as stated in the impugned order.

9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of the Police Report, it appears that there is no material to show that there was any adverse report on the basis of which licence for arms was rejected. The ground of rejection will not apply in the present case as the application for licence was for revolver which is permissible arms under Category III of Schedule I of the Arms Rule, 2016. Application for licence in such case could have been rejected if there was any adverse police report, in the absence of it the impugned order of rejection is perverse and is set aside.

10. Respondent No.3 [The Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Sahibganj] is directed to grant licence to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order on his earlier application submitted for arms license for revolver.

Writ Petition stands allowed. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Respondent No.3 for its compliance at once.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/