Page No. 1 2026:JHHC:20969 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C No. 4471 of 2025 ----- Manish Kumar, aged about- 35 years, Son of SriSantosh Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Alaudia,P.O. - Kamta, P.S. - Chandwa, District- Latehar. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Commissioner, Palamau Division, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamau. 3. District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.- Latehar, District- Latehar. …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Moushami Chatterjee, AC to GA-V …...... 09/14.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent No.-2, passed in Arms Appeal No.-18 of 2024, whereby and where under Learned Commissioner has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the Memo no. 551/Sa, dated 13.05.2024 by which the Respondent No.-3 has been pleased to cancel the Arms License No.- 44/2018 under Sub Section 3(a)(b)(c) of Section 17 of Arms Act, 1959 of the petitioner. ii. For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No. 551/Sa, dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-4) by which the Respondent No.-3 has been pleased to cancelled the Arms License No.- 44/2018under Sub Section 3(a)(b)(c) of Section 17 of Arms Act, 1959 of the petitioner. iii. Pending disposal of this writ application, the Memo No. 551/Sa, dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-4), passed by Respondent No.-3 may be kept in abeyance. 2. The petitioner being a doctor obtained arms licence for self- protection, considering that he resides in Chandwa, a Maoist-affected area. As per counsel for the petitioner, his father and brother are in construction business and in fact are victim of moist extortion but the State has accused them of terror funding. In 2019, after a Maoist attack in which four police personnel were killed, the NIA investigated the case. During an NIA search in 2020, cash was recovered from petitioner’s father's room, and his licensed rifle was seized but later was Page No. 2 returned. In another Maoist-related case registered in 2020, the petitioner's brother was made an accused and was later granted bail. In July 2023, the NIA again asked the petitioner to produce his rifle and seized it. His request for its release was rejected by the Special NIA Court, and his appeal before the High Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1432 of 2024is still pending. Thereafter, the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of his arms licence to which he replied but his licence was cancelled on 13.05.2024 under Section 17(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Arms Act. His appeal was also dismissed on 09.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe petitioner has never been named as an accused or charge-sheeted in any criminal case. He further submits that petitioner’s arms licence was legally obtained in 2018 after completing all required formalities, and there is no allegation that he suppressed any material facts or furnished false information. He also submits that the authorities cancelled his licence solely because of the allegations against his family members without there being any evidence showing that he ever misused his licensed weapon. He further submits that mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner's family members cannot be a valid ground to cancel his arms licence. The orders passed by the District Magistrate is arbitrary and without adequate reasons. 4. Learned counsel for respondent contends that the petitioner's brother is an accused in a terror funding case and a large amount of cash was recovered during a search of the family house. He further submits that some of the cartridges purchased by the petitioner were missing, and the petitioner failed to produce purchase receipts for the ammunition. He also submits that the petitioner did not deposit his weapon and attempted to influence witnesses. Respondents state that the petitioner was aware of his brother's links with Maoist and after finding the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice unsatisfactory, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the petitioner's arms licence in the interest of public safety. He also submits that the Commissioner after considering the materials on record rightly dismissed the petitioner's appeal. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner has never been named as an accused or charge-sheeted in any criminal case. There is no allegation against him from any corner on indulging in any moist activity. There is no material on record to show that he obtained the licence by suppressing any material fact or by furnishing false information. There Page No. 3 is also no allegation or evidence that the petitioner ever misused his licensed weapon or that he committed any act which is against public peace or public safety. The impugned orders are mainly based on allegation regarding the petitioner's association with his brother and family members in relation to terror funding. In the impugned order it has been taken note of that in respect of aforesaid allegation the petitioner has not produced any evidence thus, the reply to the show- cause is declared unsatisfactory but the authority did not deal with allegation of the NIA as to whether they are able to produce any evidence in support of the allegation or not. Admittedly it is the NIA who has to produce evidence in support of their allegation. Merely putting allegation upon one is not enough. The agency has to produce sufficient evidence, which is lacking in this case. There is no cogent evidence in support of the allegation. Further the order passed by the authority and the Appellate Authority lack reasons, they have passed the order merely citing the allegations. Every allegation must be backed by evidence. Allegation without supporting evidence is a bald allegation based on which, no action can be taken. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of mere suspicion and allegations against the petitioner's family members, without any evidence against the petitioner. An arms licence cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of suspicion. Further there is no material or evidence against the petitioner based on which his license can be cancelled. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner and Memo No. 551/Sa dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, cancelling the petitioner's Arms Licence are hereby quashed and set aside. Release of the arms will be considered by the Court where the criminal case is pending, in which the arms is seized. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 14th July, 2026 Anu-Cp2. Uploaded on:20/07/2026