[ High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur ]

Rajasthan HC Orders Release of Licensed Rifle Seized from Retired Soldier, Rejects Indefinite Malkhana Retention

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur set aside a Sessions Court order and directed release of a 12-bore rifle seized from a retired army man, citing licence renewal urgency and risk of firearm deterioration during a prolonged trial.

Manaswi Singh — 26 June 2026 — 6 min read

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has directed the release of a licensed 12-bore rifle that had been seized from a retired army personnel and kept in police custody pending trial. Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge, allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Jaipal Singh, a retired ex-serviceman from Village Poonam Nagar, Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer. The court quashed the order dated 11 May 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, which had rejected the petitioner's application for return of the firearm. The judgment draws on the Supreme Court's directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to hold that muddamal firearms cannot be retained in malkhana indefinitely merely because a trial is pending.

The Dispute Before the Court

Jaipal Singh, aged 48, is a retired army man who holds a valid arms licence for a 12-bore rifle bearing No. 28840-10. The licence was issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch on 26 June 2023 and was valid until 26 June 2026. The rifle was seized in connection with FIR No. 70/2024 dated 14 October 2024, registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 124(4), 109(1), and 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as Section 5/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

After the charge-sheet was filed, Jaipal Singh applied before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) read with Section 503 BNSS for return of the rifle. The Sessions Court rejected the application, holding that the firearm had allegedly been used in the offence and would be required as evidence during trial. Jaipal Singh challenged that rejection before the High Court under Section 438 BNSS.

Arguments on Both Sides

Counsel for the petitioner pressed three distinct grounds. First, the rifle had not been used in any criminal activity and the FIR was lodged on false facts. Second, the arms licence was due to expire on 26 June 2026, and physical production of the firearm before the licensing authority was mandatory for renewal. Failure to renew in time would compel the petitioner to restart the entire licensing process, causing undue hardship. Third, prolonged retention in the malkhana without proper maintenance risked permanent deterioration of the firearm, which is also the petitioner's professional tool — he works as a security guard at a bank and at a solar power plant project.

Counsel relied on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Dineshsinh Parimalsinh Tomar v. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application (Possession of Muddamal) No. 634 of 2024, decided on 5 February 2024.

The State opposed the petition. The Public Prosecutor argued that the Sessions Court had correctly found the firearm to have been used in the offence and that it would be required when evidence is recorded during trial.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Purohit identified several undisputed facts at the outset: the petitioner is a retired ex-serviceman; the rifle is a licensed firearm standing in his name under a valid licence issued by a competent authority; investigation is complete; and the charge-sheet has already been filed. On those facts, the court held that continued retention of the firearm in the malkhana was not required.

The court addressed the State's primary concern — that releasing the rifle might lead to repetition of the offence — and found it speculative and unsupported by any material on record. The court observed that the mere lodging of one FIR, without any other criminal antecedent, cannot by itself justify a presumption that the petitioner will misuse the firearm.

On the trial-evidence argument, the court held that keeping the rifle in police custody until the conclusion of trial was not a justified ground, particularly when the trial was going to take considerable time. The court noted that the firearm can always be produced before the trial court whenever required, and that appropriate safeguards and conditions can be imposed at the time of release to protect the requirements of a fair trial.

The court then turned to the risk of physical deterioration. It found substance in the submission that prolonged retention without proper care could adversely affect the firearm's condition and operational efficiency. The court stated that valuable property should ordinarily not be permitted to remain in police custody for an indefinite period, especially when proper documentation, photographs, and identification particulars can adequately safeguard evidentiary requirements.

Justice Purohit placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290, which held that powers under Section 451 CrPC (now Section 497 BNSS) “should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.” The Supreme Court had enumerated that prompt exercise of this power prevents the owner from suffering due to non-use or misappropriation, relieves courts and police of the burden of safe custody, and allows a proper panchnama to substitute for physical production during trial.

The court separately addressed the licence renewal issue. The arms licence was due to expire on 26 June 2026, and physical production of the firearm before the licensing authority was a legal requirement for renewal. Denial of release would deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to renew a valid licence granted under law. If the licence lapsed due to non-production of the firearm, the petitioner would be compelled to undergo the entire fresh licensing process, causing undue hardship.

Finally, the court took note of the petitioner's professional circumstances. As a retired ex-serviceman working as a security guard, the rifle is not a decorative possession but an important tool connected with his vocation and source of livelihood. Depriving him of custody of the licensed firearm could adversely affect his ability to discharge his professional responsibilities.

Conditions Imposed on Release

While allowing the petition, the court imposed detailed conditions to protect the trial's evidentiary requirements. The petitioner must:

furnish a solvent surety of an amount equivalent to the price of the rifle as stated in the FIR or panchnama;
file an undertaking before the trial court that he will not transfer, change the identity, colour, or any other feature of the firearm until final disposal of the trial;
produce the muddamal before the trial court as and when directed; and
accept that in the event of any subsequent offence, the firearm shall stand confiscated.

The trial court was directed to prepare a detailed panchnama of the rifle before releasing it, including photographs from all sides and all identification particulars, at the cost of the petitioner. The panchnama and photographs are to form part of the trial court's record. The trial court was also directed to pass appropriate directions to the concerned police authority to take photographs of the muddamal from all sides and record all required identification particulars.

Outcome

The criminal revision petition was allowed. The order dated 11 May 2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 34/2025 (31/2025) was quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to release the 12-bore rifle bearing No. 28840-10 to Jaipal Singh subject to the conditions set out above. All pending applications, including the stay application, were disposed of.