JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG-3 for the Respondents-State assisted by Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AAG-3.

2. The present intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2024, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWJC No.7091 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur had issued an arms licence bearing Licence No. 2776/NH/KNA for one N.P. bore Pistol in favour of the appellant. The said licence was duly inspected from time to time and renewed in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the appellant purchased the licensed arm and it is not the case of the authorities that the same was ever misused by him. Subsequently, the appellant was made an accused in Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018 dated 15.10.2018, instituted under Sections 30(A), 38 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. In the said case, the appellant was granted bail by the competent court on 18.01.2019. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Incharge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali at Hajipur. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause on 08.11.2019, specifically stating that he had never misused the licensed arm. The In-charge Officer, District Arms Section, Vaishali, by order dated 31.12.2019, suspended the arms licence of the appellant with immediate effect. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, against the order dated 31.12.2019. The learned Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference was warranted with the order of suspension. The appellant thereafter approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 7091 of 2023, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows:

“2. It seems that the petitioner is a smuggler involved in smuggling of liquor. The arms license of the petitioner has been suspended because of pending cases of liquor smuggling against him. Such criminals do not deserve any sympathy from this Court.

3. In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suspension of the appellant’s arms licence is based solely on the pendency of a criminal case and not on any independent or objective satisfaction regarding threat to public peace or safety, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant was granted a valid arms licence after due verification, the same was regularly renewed, and there is no allegation at any stage that the licensed arm was ever used or misused by him. Even in the criminal case registered against the appellant, the licensed weapon is not alleged to have been used. It is also urged that the licence has been suspended for an indefinite period, which is impermissible in law. Mere registration of a criminal case cannot lead to branding the appellant as a criminal or smuggler, particularly in the absence of any adjudication of guilt.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that none of the conditions governing possession, carrying or use of arms reliance as mandated by the Arms Rules, 2016 has been violated by the appellant. There is no allegation that the appellant carried the weapon in a manner contrary to the Rules and Regulations specified by the Central or the State government. Conditions mandated under Form III, Schedule III of the Arms Rules, 2016 have not been violated, and as such the cancellation of the arms license of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. In support of