Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1407 (PAT)

Bhirgun Jee Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2012-10-04

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORDER Petitioner is holder of a valid arms license, which was issued to him in the year 2000, bearing Arms License No. 326 of 2000, valid till 2014. He purchased a double barrel gun no. X103410/2000 on so called payment of Rs.65,000/-. Evidence of purchase from an authorized arms license dealer has also been brought on record. 2. As is customary, all holders of legal guns and arms were asked to deposit the same in the nearest police station keeping in view impending panchayat / assembly election which was going to be held in the year 2006. Petitioner being a law abiding citizen surrendered his gun before MH Nagar, Hasanpur Police Station situated in the district of Siwan. Petitioner was sanguine that he will get possession of the gun after the election was over and the code of conduct withdrawn. However, it seems that on 24.07.2006 in an incident, anti-social elements looted the Thana including arms and the ammunitions, not only belonging to the police but even ordinary citizens, who had surrendered their guns as directed by the respondent authorities. 3. Petitioner has been approaching the respondents in all these years for return of his arms. He has been stoic, despite the standard answer, that the incident is still being investigated and the gun of the petitioner has not been recovered. Thereafter, the Writ Application came to be filed, seeking either return of the gun or direction for suitable payment to the petitioner. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Siwan filed a counter affidavit, expressing his helplessness on the issue till date. A statement was also made that he is looking for certain clarification from the headquarters which is being awaited. 5. The Court directed the Director General of Police to file an affidavit and indicate the decisions, which has been taken on the issue. In a cryptic counter affidavit filed on behalf of DG Police he has taken a stand that the matter was reviewed at the police headquarters. The gun of the petitioner and other valuable properties were looted, which was an unfortunate incident and that the Bihar Police is not competent to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. The factum of deposit the loot / loss of the double barrel gun of the petitioner is not in dispute. The gun of the petitioner and other valuable properties were looted, which was an unfortunate incident and that the Bihar Police is not competent to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. The factum of deposit the loot / loss of the double barrel gun of the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner had deposited the gun, sanguine with the feeling that his property will be looked after and taken care of by the State machinery. He could never imagine that the arm of the State which enforces law and protects life and property of citizen will turn out to be the reason for loss of his valuable right to reclaim the arms in question, whatever be the explanation offered by the respondents. In fact these are the circumstances why citizens are reluctant to deposit arms with the police authorities and generally they surrender such arms to licensed dealers where they are better taken care of than the State agency. 7. Since the petitioner has suffered due to the action or inaction on the part of the State authorities, he cannot be allowed to rue his lot and wait for the investigation or recovery, which has not seen the end of the day in the last six years. 8. The Court is left with no option but to direct for compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the DG Police is directed to ensure that either the gun of the petitioner is restored to him within eight weeks. Failure to do so will entail that the petitioner will be entitled to payment of the cost of the gun, which has been said to be of Rs.65,000/- within the said time-frame or in the alternative the State also has a liberty to provide a similar gun with similar make within the time-frame indicated above. The time-frame fixed by the Court must be adhered to, as the petitioner has suffered long enough by first running to the authorities for redressal of his grievance and then patiently waiting before the High Court for the last five years for a solution to the issue in which even counter affidavit was not filed for a long time. 9. Writ Application is allowed with above observation.