Firing in self-defense not a violation of license norms: Allahabad High Court

In a significant judgment, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court ordered the release of licensed Glock pistol and four cartridges of the petitioner after he fired at the plaintiff in self-defence. The court said although Section 30 declares violation of the conditions of the license as an offence, the lower court had not specified the violation of the Arms Act.

Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that firing a pistol for self-defense is not a violation of the license norms. A single bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court made the observation as it ordered the release of the pistol of the petitioner Sunil Dutt Tripathi. The petitioner was booked in Ghazipur police station, it was alleged that he along with other accused opened fire with the intention of killing the plaintiff and other people.

However, no one was injured in the alleged firing. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 30 of the Arms Act along with other sections. After being released on bail in the case, the petitioner filed an application in the lower court for the release of his licensed Glock pistol and four cartridges, which was rejected, after which the petitioner approached the High Court.

The bench said that the that there does not seem to be a prime facie crime under Section 30 of the Arms Act in the case. The court found that only the accused suffered injuries in the incident. The court also cited the statement of the sister of one of the co-accused, Sachin Sharma, in which she had said that some people were beating Sachin Sharma. When the petitioner tried to save him, they attacked him, then the petitioner found some way out, she said.

She said that without noticing it, he fired in the air with his licensed pistol. The court said that Section 30 declares violation of the conditions of the license as an offence, but in the present case, firing in self-defense is a violation of which condition of the Arms Act, the lower court has not clarified. The court has ordered the immediate release of the said pistol and cartridges in favor of the petitioner.