#arms-act

The Delhi High Court acquitted three accused, holding the prosecution failed to prove the five-person assembly required under Sections 399/402 IPC. It also deemed the police’s contradictory testimony and the alleged overheard conversation implausible, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

The Delhi High Court set aside murder convictions where the prosecution could not prove a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence or correctly identify the accused, reducing some to culpable homicide. This ruling stresses that without an unbroken evidentiary link and reliable identification, a murder charge cannot be sustained, impacting pending murder appeals.

Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that parity with co-accused justifies regular bail under BNSS 483 even for grave offences under BNS and Arms Act, setting a precedent for consistent bail jurisprudence.

Allahabad HC grants bail to Markendey Rai in Case Crime No.492/2024 after all fact witnesses examined, citing no threat to witnesses and reliance on Supreme Court precedents. The ruling underscores the importance of examining witnesses before denying bail in politically motivated false implication cases involving self-defence claims.

The Supreme Court ruled that conviction under the Arms Act requires proof of 'conscious possession'-mere recovery of weapons from premises is insufficient. The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing dominion and knowledge over seized arms, impacting prosecutions under extremist-related offenses.

The Supreme Court reiterated that conviction under the Arms Act demands proof of 'conscious possession'-mere recovery of weapons without evidence of dominion or knowledge is insufficient. The ruling sets a critical precedent for extremist-related prosecutions, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to establish active control over seized arms.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that licensing authorities cannot reject arms license renewals solely because a criminal case is pending. A concrete evaluation of public safety risk under Section 17(3)(b) is mandatory - mere registration of an FIR, without evidence linking the firearm to the alleged offense, is insufficient. This protects lawful license holders from arbitrary administrative action and reinforces procedural fairness in firearm regulation.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 65-year-old accused with a critical heart condition, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to health under Article 21 when no overt act is visible in CCTV footage and charge framing remains pending. This ruling reinforces that medical vulnerability and lack of direct involvement must weigh heavily in bail decisions, even in serious Arms Act cases.

Jharkhand High Court upholds conviction under the Arms Act but reduces the sentence to nine months already undergone, citing an unreasonable 18-year trial delay as grounds for leniency. The ruling underscores judicial discretion to mitigate sentences where procedural lapses prejudice the accused, even in serious offences.

Allahabad High Court acquitted appellants in a murder trial, holding that material contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, coupled with unreliable recoveries and witness testimony, failed to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. The ruling reinforces that prosecution must establish a consistent chain of evidence to secure conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Bombay High Court rules that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (BNSS) cannot be denied merely based on co-accused statements if no direct evidence connects the applicant to the offence. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation is unwarranted where the FIR relies solely on hearsay, setting a precedent for bail considerations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act.

Allahabad High Court grants bail to an accused not named in the FIR or witness statements, holding that mere co-accused confessions are insufficient to establish a prima facie case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The ruling reinforces that bail cannot be denied without direct evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court suspended the remaining jail term of a convict sentenced under IPC 307 and Arms Act after he served over four years with remission, conditioning release on fine payment and a Rs.50,000 personal bond with surety. This reinforces that prolonged pre-disposal custody, combined with clean record and no flight risk, can justify bail even in serious non-bailable offences under the new criminal code.

Allahabad High Court sets aside conviction under Section 25 Arms Act, holding that recovery of firearms cannot stand independently when the main prosecution story is unreliable.

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a Section 307 IPC case after finding no particularized evidence tying him to weapon use or causing injuries, despite omnibus allegations against co-accused. This reinforces that generic group liability cannot substitute individualized proof in serious offences, protecting individuals from overbroad arrest based on collective suspicion.