Supreme Court Order: Return Licensed Revolver to Bodyguard

The Supreme Court has directed the Maharashtra government to return a private bodyguard's licensed revolver within eight weeks. According to a report by Hindustan Times, this decision was taken because the prolonged seizure of the weapon was severely affecting the applicant's livelihood.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan, and Apulesh Kumar Singh delivered this significant judgment. The court observed that Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus, a private bodyguard responsible for a family of six members, was deprived of his licensed revolver for more than a decade even after being acquitted. The court clarified that the pendency of an appeal against acquittal cannot be a reason to seize an individual's weapon indefinitely.

The bench issued this order linking it to the impact on the applicant's livelihood. The court noted that Yunus works in the private security sector, where possession of a revolver is essential to secure employment in this field. Without the revolver, he could not work professionally, creating difficulties for his family's sustenance. The court also noted that lower courts had obstructed the decision on Yunus's application on the pretext of the pending appeal.

The background of the entire matter dates back to 2012. A case was registered under the Arms Act along with charges of attempted murder, provocation, and destruction of evidence under an FIR filed at the Bazar Peth police station in Jalgaon. Yunus was named as the eighth accused in this case. His licensed revolver was seized during the investigation.

In March 2013, the Sessions Court acquitted all eight accused in the case. The court had directed at that time that seized items be returned after the appeal period had expired. However, Yunus did not get his weapon back.

Yunus had applied to the Sessions Court in January 2014 to recover his licensed weapon. He informed the court that it was difficult for him to find work without the weapon and that he was willing to comply with any conditions to release the weapon. However, his application was rejected in February 2015 because the appeal against the acquittal was still pending.

Subsequently, Yunus approached the Bombay High Court. In March 2015, the High Court directed that his application would be considered along with the hearing of the appeal against the acquittal. In this manner, both his application and the appeal remained pending for years. Ultimately, Yunus knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court referred to Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under this section, criminal courts have the power to decide on the disposal of seized property after the conclusion of a trial. The court stated that the court must decide whether the seized property should be returned or retained based on the circumstances of the case.

The court has asked the Maharashtra government to take necessary steps to hand over the revolver within eight weeks, but all legal requirements and conditions under the Arms Act, 1959, must be complied with for this. The court clarified that this order will not affect the ongoing appeal against the acquittal in the Bombay High Court.