The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has set aside an order suspending the arms licence of Ghanshyam Yadav for an indefinite period, holding that merely registering a criminal case cannot by itself justify suspension of an arms licence.
Justice Gajendra Singh passed the order on September 24, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 35168 of 2026.
The petitioner had challenged the order dated December 19, 2024, by which his arms licence was suspended in connection with criminal proceedings. The record showed that a criminal case and a cross-case had been registered following an incident on November 2, 2024.
The petitioner, a retired Army personnel, was working as a Security Guard with Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. His counsel submitted that possession of a valid arms licence was connected with his employment. The petitioner had also voluntarily deposited his licensed firearm at Police Station Narsinghgarh on November 8, 2024. The record did not allege that the firearm had been used or misused in the incident.
The Court was also informed that the petitioner and other accused persons had subsequently been acquitted by the trial court on September 10, 2026, in relation to the criminal case relied upon for the suspension. The State did not dispute the petitioner’s acquittal.
After examining the impugned order, the High Court found that the arms licence had been suspended primarily because of the pendency of the criminal case. The Court considered whether the licensing authority had properly exercised its statutory power under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The Court observed:
"In the impugned order the licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for suspending the licence. Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be suspended".
The Court further held that the licensing authority had not recorded the required satisfaction before suspending the licence. According to the order, the authority had exercised its power without proper application of mind and without recording the necessary subjective satisfaction.
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated December 19, 2024. However, it did not itself decide the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to retain the arms licence.
The matter was remitted to the licensing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The authority was directed to provide the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing and consider relevant material, including the status and disposal of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner’s conduct after grant of the licence, and any material concerning public peace or public safety.
The Court directed that the exercise preferably be completed within eight weeks and clarified that the licensing authority must record an independent and reasoned satisfaction under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 35168 of 2026
