The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the release of a licensed 12-bore rifle seized in a criminal case, holding that keeping the firearm in police custody for an indefinite period was not justified after the investigation had been completed. The Court observed that mere pendency of a trial could not be a reason to deny the lawful owner possession of the weapon, especially when adequate safeguards could ensure its production during proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Jaipal Singh, a retired Army personnel and licensed firearm holder, challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, which had refused to release his 12-bore rifle. The firearm had been seized in connection with an FIR registered in October 2024 involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.
The petitioner argued that he possessed a valid arms licence, the investigation had already concluded, and the charge sheet had been filed. He also submitted that his licence was nearing expiry and the rifle was required to be physically produced before the licensing authority for its renewal.
The State opposed the plea, contending that the rifle was allegedly used in the incident under investigation and would be required as material evidence during the trial.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjeet Purohit noted that the petitioner was a retired ex-serviceman holding a valid arms licence and that the investigation had already been completed.
Rejecting the State's apprehension, the Court observed,
"The apprehension expressed by the respondent State that release of the firearm may result in repetition of offence is speculative in nature and unsupported by any material placed on record."
The Court further held that the possibility of the firearm being required during trial did not justify keeping it in the police malkhana indefinitely.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that valuable property should not remain in police custody unnecessarily when proper documentation and photographs can adequately serve evidentiary purposes.
The Court also accepted the petitioner's contention that prolonged storage without proper maintenance could damage the firearm. It noted that denying release would also affect the petitioner's opportunity to renew his valid arms licence.
Another significant factor considered by the Court was the petitioner's occupation. The bench recorded that after retirement from the Army, he was working as a security guard and that the licensed rifle was connected with his livelihood.
As the Court observed,
"For the revisionist, the rifle is not a mere cherished possession or decorative article, rather it constitutes an important tool connected with his vocation and source of livelihood."
Decision
Allowing the criminal revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the trial court's order dated May 11, 2026, and directed that the licensed 12-bore rifle be released to the petitioner, subject to conditions.
The Court required the petitioner to furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the value of the firearm, undertake not to alter or transfer it, produce it whenever directed during the trial, and comply with all documentation requirements, including preparation of a detailed panchnama and photographs before release.
It also directed that the firearm would be liable to confiscation if the petitioner was involved in any subsequent offence.
Case Details
Case Title: Jaipal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 819/2026
Judge: Justice Sanjeet Purohit (Vacation Judge)
Decision Date: 03 June 2026
