Allahabad High Court
Vivek Vikram Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., ... on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66060
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 6468 of 2024
Vivek Vikram Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sushil Kumar Singh, Ayush Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Ram Kumar Maurya, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State.
2. By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur whereby the petitioner's application for issuance of arms license has been rejected. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order by filing Appeal No. 2117 of 2022 under Section 18 of the Arms Act, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division and the petitioner has assailed the validity of the appellate order also.
3. A copy of the application for arms license submitted by the petitioner has been annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the State wherein the petitioner has categorically stated that he has not been convicted for any offence, he has not been asked to submit bonds for maintaining peace under Chapter 8 of Cr.P.C. and he has not been restrained from keeping arms and ammunition under the Arms Act 1959 or under any other law. Against the entry regarding disclosure of whether the applicant has a secure space for keeping the arms and ammunition, the applicant had mentioned 'Pakka Bhawan me steel Almirah', however, the petitioner has ticked 'nahi' and put a cross against 'ha' which appears to be due to an error. The reason for obtaining an arms license has been mentioned as safety of person and property of the applicant. Against Entry 18 regarding disclosure of any special ground for the claim, the applicant mentioned that he is a teacher and a farmer, his brother and father have been killed regarding which a trial is going on. The accused persons have been released on bail and the witnesses are being pressurized.
4. The aforesaid application for arms license submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 stating that the petitioner is accused in three cases ? Case Crime No. 194 of 2001, under section 302/120-B IPC, PS Kotwali Kadipur, District Sultanpur, Case Crime No.693 of 2005, under sections 302/34 IPC, PS Kadipur, District Sultanpur and Case Crime No.93A of 1999, under sections 452/323/342/506 IPC, PS Akhandpur, District Sultanpur. Although, the petitioner stated that he has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 693 of 2005, under sections 302/34 IPC has not stated anything about the other two cases. The District Magistrate, Sultanpur also found that the petitioner has not given proof of having adequate space for keeping the arms and ammunition and he has not submitted proof of training and medical certificate.
5. In appeal, the petitioner submitted that Case Crime No. 194 of 2001, under section 302,120-B IPC, PS Kotwali Kadipur, District Sultanpur, was registered by his brother Ajay Vikram Singh regarding murder of his father Late Swaraj Bahadur Singh. The petitioner is not an accused in the aforesaid case rather he is a witness. Case Crime No.93A of 1999 is a cross case under sections 323, 342, 504, 452, 506 IPC, PS Akhandpur, District Sultanpur.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by means of an order dated 26.02.2024 reiterating the version that the petitioner has been acquitted in one case and he has not given any explanation regarding his involvement in other two cases. The petitioner's specific plea that he is not an accused in Case Crime No.194 of 2001 registered regarding murder of the petitioner's father and he is a witness in this case, has not been dealt with by the appellate authority.
7. Regarding lack of adequate space for storage of the arms and ammunition, the petitioner had categorically stated that he is living in a pakka house and has a steel Almirah to keep the arm and the ammunition, which appears to be sufficient to meet the requirements for grant of arms license. Regarding training, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would receive training only after he acquires a weapon, which would only be after receiving an arms license.
8. Naturally, without having an arms license, a person cannot use any weapon even for obtaining training
9. The State has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been reiterated that three cases have been registered against the petitioner, namely, Case Crime No. 194 of 2001, under section 302,120-B IPC, PS Kotwali Kadipur, District Sultanpur, Case Crime No.693 of 2005, under sections 302/34 IPC, PS Kadipur, District Sultanpur, Case Crime No.93A of 1999, under sections 452, 323, 342, 506 IPC ,PS Akhandpur, District Sultanpur. The counter affidavit states that petitioner has submitted that he has been acquitted in Case Crime No.693 of 2005, but he has not submitted any documents regarding the other two cases. It appears that the counter affidavit merely reiterates the version in the impugned order and it does not address the fact that the petitioner is not an accused in Case Crime No.194 of 2001 under section 302/120-B IPC, which was lodged regarding murder of petitioner's father.
10. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division, District Ayodhya are unsustainable in law, and the same are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 01.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division, District Ayodhya are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur for passing a fresh order on the petitioner's application for grant of arms license keeping in view the observations made and findings recorded in this order, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) October 27, 2025 Preeti