MP High Court: Arms Licence Cannot Be Suspended Merely Because a Criminal Case Is Registered

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that an arms licence cannot be suspended merely because a criminal case has been registered against the licence holder, setting aside an indefinite suspension order passed against a retired Army man who works as a security guard.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Ghanshyam Yadav, Justice Gajendra Singh ruled that the licensing authority had acted "without application of mind, arbitrary and without recording subjective satisfaction." The order was passed on September 24, 2026.

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order dated December 19, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate in Case No. 11814/Seven-Licence/2024. The order suspended his arms licence for an indefinite period, even though there was no allegation that his licensed firearm was used or misused in the incident.

The dispute arose from Crime No. 0502/2024, registered on November 2, 2024, at the instance of the petitioner's brother under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A cross-case, Crime No. 0503/2024, was registered the same day against the petitioner and others.

Advocate Prashant Yadav, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he is a retired Army personnel who earns his livelihood as a security guard with the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. As the sole bread earner, his post requires a valid arms licence and a licensed firearm. The continued suspension, counsel argued, had placed his livelihood at serious risk.

Counsel told the Court that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited his firearm at Police Station Narsinghgarh on November 8, 2024. The deposit was acknowledged through a "Shastra Jama Rasid." The firearm, it was argued, was therefore not seized because of any alleged use in the incident.

The petitioner contended that the action had to be examined in light of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, since the respondents had shown no material that continuing his licence would be prejudicial to public peace or public safety.

The petitioner, along with other co-accused, had been acquitted on September 10, 2026, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, Rajgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 1209/2025 arising from Crime No. 0502/2024. He relied on three rulings of the Gwalior bench of the High Court: Jandel Singh Rawat, Gautam Rai Rally and Padam Chand Gupta.

Advocate Hemant Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Advocate General, opposed the prayer but admitted that the petitioner is a retired armed personnel and has been acquitted.

The Court noted that the licence had been suspended on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. Observing that the grant of an arms licence is "a privilege extended by the State," it found that the licensing authority had not recorded any satisfaction for suspending the licence. "Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be suspended," the Court held.

It concluded that the authority "did not exercise the power in accordance with Section 17(3) of the Act," and set aside the December 19, 2024 order.

The licence is not automatically restored. The Court remitted the matter to Respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law. The authority must grant the petitioner an effective hearing and weigh all relevant material, including the status and nature of the criminal cases, their disposal, the petitioner's conduct after the grant of the licence, and any material bearing on public peace or public safety.

The authority must record its "independent and reasoned satisfaction" under Section 17 of the Arms Act and "shall not proceed merely on the basis of registration or pendency of a criminal case or on a bald apprehension of possible misuse of the licensed firearm."

The exercise is to be completed preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal cases or the petitioner's ultimate entitlement to hold the licence.

Case Title: Ghanshyam Yadav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh