- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8886 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. A. RAVI, S/O ANDANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, TIMBER MERCHANT, RESIDING AT NO.101, TOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 73. ALSO CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE R K RESORT, ANCHEPALYA, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G BALAJI NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU URBAN, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU NORTH, PEENYA SECOND FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING, P BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 058. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PEENYA SUB - DIVISION, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE PETITIONERS LICENSED PISTOL BEARING WEAPON NUMBER 97280 (CZ MAKE) ALONG WITH 4 AMMUNITION CONFISCATED BY MADANYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION ON 12.03.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE - E AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts to be a law abiding citizen and claims to be carrying on business under the name and style R.K. Resort at Thottadaguddadahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru District. The petitioner possesses a valid licence to hold arms issued in Form No.3 under the Arms Act, 1959 bearing licence number MAG(S) ARMCR 61/11-12. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No.5 - Inspector of Police in confiscating the petitioner's licenced arms on the premised that the complaint is lodged by petitioner's son. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 3. The petitioner calls in question the action of respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms, inter alia contending that the said authority lacks jurisdiction to order confiscation. Placing strong reliance on Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the statutory scheme clearly postulates that confiscation of arms can be ordered only by a competent criminal court and that too upon culmination of trial resulting in conviction. It is further contended that the role of the police or executive authorities is only ancillary and limited to acting in aid of, or in compliance with, directions issued by a competent court. In the absence of any such adjudication or direction by the jurisdictional criminal court, the unilateral action of respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms is without authority of law and is liable to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and has adverted to the mandate of Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959. A plain reading of the said provision makes it manifest that the power of confiscation is not an independent executive power, but one that is intrinsically linked to judicial determination by a competent criminal court upon recording of conviction. The provision does not vest any suo motu power in the police authorities to confiscate licensed arms dehors such adjudication. In the present case, admittedly, no such conviction has been recorded nor is there any order passed by a competent criminal court directing confiscation. The impugned action of respondent No.5, therefore, runs contrary to the statutory framework and amounts to an excess of jurisdiction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 5. This Court also finds considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the genesis of the action lies in a complaint lodged by the petitioner’s son, which, on the face of it, discloses a familial discord between father and son. While such disputes may warrant appropriate preventive measures in accordance with law, the drastic step of confiscation of licensed arms, in the absence of statutory sanction, cannot be sustained. The impugned action, therefore, appears to be not only without jurisdiction but also disproportionate and arbitrary. 6. In the above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the action of respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms warrants interference. However, in order to balance the concerns of safety and to ensure that the licensed arms are not misused, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to furnish an affidavit undertaking that he shall not, under any circumstances, threaten or endanger his son or any of his family members by use of the licensed arms. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The action of respondent No.5 in confiscating the petitioner’s licensed arms and ammunition is set aside. (iii) Respondent No.5 is directed to restore custody of the licensed arms along with ammunition to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner furnishing an affidavit of undertaking stating that he shall not use the licensed arms to threaten, intimidate, or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15923 WP No. 8886 of 2026 cause harm to his son or any of his family members. (iv) Upon such affidavit being filed, respondent No.5 shall forthwith, and in any event within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, hand over custody of the confiscated arms and ammunition to the petitioner. (v) It is made clear that any breach of the undertaking so furnished by the petitioner would entail appropriate action in accordance with law, including reconsideration of the licence. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32