IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2947 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE LUXMI NARAYAN SINGH R/O R.P. ROAD, KHALIFABAG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JANAKI PRASAD LANE, MUNDICHAK, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI (KOTWALI) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHAGALPUR 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ARMS) BHAGALPUR ----------- 2/ 12/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cancelling his arms licence in Misc. Case No.8/06-07 as affirmed by the Commissioner on 8.10.2009 in Misc. Arms Case No.14/07-08. The impugned order mentions two grounds. The first is that the petitioner did not comply the order dated 31.7.2006 by depositing the fire arms before the Officer-in-Charge. Secondly that the petitioner was an accused in Tilka Manjhi P.S. Case No.254/05 dated 17.4.2005 in which charge-sheet had been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a Xerox copy of an acknowledgement dated 11.8.2006 of the Officer-in-Charge, Tilka Manjhi Police Station confirming deposit of the firearms by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 31.7.2006. Unfortunately, this document was not part of the writ 2 petition and therefore finds no consideration in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that even if the order is vitiated on that ground, the fact remains that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in which he is alleged to have used the firearms. But the fact of the matter also is that the State did not oppose and allowed the firearms to be released in favour of the petitioner by the competent court. The trial is still pending. It cannot be lost sight of that Tilka Manjhi P.S. Case No.253/05 and 254/05 are case and counter case in context of a land dispute. The petitioner is not alleged to have indulged in extreme unlawful and indiscriminate illegal use of the firearm threatening peace of the society at large disturbing public tranquility or peace or posing a danger to the same. The defence of the petitioner that he was acting only in self defence is also a stand which cannot be rejected outright at this stage. Equally the contention of the petitioner that in any event the firearms remains still within the control of the State as even after release he shall have to produce as an exhibit during trial is also a matter which cannot be ignored by the court. Both the petitioner and the State must share the blame for not placing proper materials before the 3 Court. If the petitioner did not produce adequate material in support of the claim for deposit of the firearms, the State has equally been casual in its counter affidavit while not dealing with the issue. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion contained in the present order, it is considered proper to set aside the impugned orders dated 12.7.2007 and 8.10.2009. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)