1 16 WP 3919 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 16 WRIT PETITION NO. 3919 OF 2023 ANUP SHRIRAM AGASHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. A. D. Hande, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent-State … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21st September 2026 P.C. :- . An application under Section 13 of the Arms Act 1959 was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority. The said application came to be turned down by the authority citing reason of pendency of criminal prosecutions against the petitioner. The order came to be passed on 12.10.2020 by the District Magistrate, Nanded. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1959 was taken up by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner which also came to be turned down vide order dated 07.06.2024. As against both the orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 2026:BHC-AUG:43040-DB 2 16 WP 3919 OF 2023 2. Mr. A. D. Hande, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and conducts his professional work at Nanded as also at Aurangabad. He would submit that, since the petitioner is engaged in defending accused persons in criminal cases and is also holding a post in political party, he apprehends insecurity to his life. He further submits that the petitioner is also the Joint Editor of weekly newspaper namely “Karmajit (कर्मजित)” and hence, he was bound to leave his house/office even in the midnight to solve the social issues. It is submitted that the petitioner often carries huge cash with him and has to travel to various places on account of social work. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is Chief Editor of “Dainik Earth”. Therefore, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner was justified and ought to have been allowed and the respondent-authority ought to have granted an arms license to the petitioner under the Act. 3. Learned AGP would advocate the reasoning rendered by the authorities under the Act while rejecting the petitioner’s application. 3 16 WP 3919 OF 2023 4. From the record placed before me, it appears that the authorities have referred to three criminal cases in which the petitioner was facing prosecution. On query, Mr. Hande, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now acquitted in Crime No.255 of 2008. He submits that the petitioner is also acquitted in the prosecution arising out of Crime No.34 of 2009. He further submits that the prosecution arising out of Crime No.60 of 2011 is still pending. 5. Considering the reasons recorded by both the authorities under the Act, I do not find any error committed by the authorities while rejecting the petitioner’s application. 6. Since the authorities had referred to three prosecutions, out of which two are no more, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application after his acquittal in the third prosecution. In the event such application is filed, the authorities shall consider the same on its own merits and in the light of the then prevailing circumstances. 7. With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) PRW