Arms Act Prosecution Without Proof of Possession, Delivery or Mens Rea Unsustainable: P&H High Court Quashes FIR Against Licensed Holders
Case Name: Bajrang Dass & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 06.03.2026
Citation: CRM-M-30985-2021
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The High Court held that mere presence of licensed firearms in photographs taken by an unauthorized person does not constitute offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a) or 29 of the Arms Act in absence of unlawful possession, delivery, or mens rea. FIR quashed as abuse of process and indicative of political vendetta.
Summary: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29 of the Arms Act on the basis of photographs uploaded on social media by a third person, namely Vikas, who was allegedly employed as a driver by petitioner No.1. The prosecution case was that the accused Vikas had clicked photographs with various weapons, including licensed revolvers belonging to the petitioners, and uploaded them online.
The entire prosecution rested on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and the inference drawn from photographs. It was alleged that the petitioners failed in their duty as license holders by allowing unauthorized access to firearms.
The Court examined the statutory ingredients of Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act. It found that Section 25 requires unlawful possession or acquisition in contravention of law, which was absent as the petitioners were licensed holders. With respect to Section 29, the Court emphasized that “delivery” of a weapon to an unauthorized person is a sine qua non. The facts, even if accepted, only showed that the weapons were lying in the house and photographs were taken without any conscious act of handing over.
The Court further noted inconsistency and discriminatory conduct by the investigating agency, as other weapon owners similarly placed were not prosecuted. The photographs themselves did not conclusively establish possession or ownership in all instances.
Importantly, the Court stressed the absence of mens rea, holding that there was no allegation or material to show intention to facilitate illegal use of firearms. The case was also viewed in the backdrop of political rivalry, as the petitioners were opposition party members and prosecution was initiated close to elections.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the allegations did not disclose any offence and the proceedings were maliciously instituted.
Decision: The petition was allowed and FIR No.126 dated 20.04.2019 under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29 of the Arms Act was quashed qua the petitioners, being an abuse of the process of law and lacking essential ingredients of the alleged offences.