Threat to Life or Property Not Necessary For Obtaining Arms License: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently clarified that a person seeking an arms license does not have to establish a threat to his life or property.

A single judge bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha has said, "The Arms Act nowhere provides that an applicant must establish the existence of an imminent threat to his life or property as a condition precedent for consideration of his application. Equally, Section 14 does not contemplate refusal of a licence merely because the police authorities have not recorded any specific threat perception. Had the legislature intended such a requirement, the same would have found express mention in the statute. The Court cannot read into the statute a condition which the legislature itself has consciously omitted."

With these observations, the high court recently passed an order in favour of one Brij Nandan Singh who had been pursuing his case for grant of licence since 2014 i.e. now for the last twelve years.

The high court thus issued a direction to the District Magistrate, Buxar to consider the grant of licence in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months.

Singh had applied for grant of a rifle licence in the prescribed form before the Arms Magistrate, Buxar, on the grounds of personal necessity and protection of his life and property. Despite favourable police verification and recommendation, the District Magistrate, Buxar, by order dated 23.02.2016 rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that his annual income was Rs. 63,000/- and, therefore, he was allegedly not competent to hold an arms licence.

As per Singh, the police report had recorded that his grandfather, Late Jugli Singh, had been killed by Naxalites in the year 1987 and that one Vishwanath Paswan, a servant of the his family, was similarly killed by Naxalites. According to the Singh, these circumstances demonstrated a continuing atmosphere of threat and insecurity faced by his family. 

A perusal of the impugned order by the High court revealed that the licensing authority had not recorded any finding that the petitioner was prohibited by law from possessing firearms. "There is no finding that the petitioner is of unsound mind. There is no finding that the petitioner is for any reason unfit to possess an arm. There is equally no finding that grant of licence would endanger public peace, public safety or public interest. In absence of such findings, the statutory foundation necessary for refusal under Section 14 is absent, " Justice Sinha also noted.

In its order, the high court further noted that, "...the police report itself recorded certain circumstances relied upon by the petitioner regarding incidents affecting his family. The report noted that the petitioner's grandfather was allegedly killed by Naxalites in the year 1987 and that another person associated with the family was also killed in a subsequent incident. Whether such circumstances by themselves conclusively establish threat perception is not the issue before this Court. What is significant is that the authorities were required to objectively evaluate the entirety of the materials on record. Instead, the application came to be rejected solely because the police report did not expressly use the phrase "threat perception". Such an approach reflects excessive reliance on form rather than substance."

Case Title: Brij Nandan Singh @ Braj Nandan Singh vs State of Bihar

Bench: Justice Alok Sinha

Order Date: June 19, 2026