Disposed¶19

Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIC/11402/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms licence cancellation; direction to appellate authority (Commissioner) for expeditious disposal of statutory appeal under Section 18 Arms Act; appeal against District Magistrate Auraiya order dated 10.6.2025 in Case No. 495 of 2025; licence cancellation proceedings under Section 17(3) Arms Act; acquittal dated 6.11.2025 in Case Crime No. 37 of 2025 (Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. read with Section 30 Arms Act, P.S. Bharthana, Etawah); complainant turned hostile, benefit of doubt; writ of mandamus for speedy appeal disposal; Vinod Diwakar, J.; WRIT - C No. 11402 of 2026; adjourned to 15.4.2026 for State instructions.

What the court decided

Rampal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11402 of 2026

Rampal Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Devesh Kumar Verma, Sheetal Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 37

¶10

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Commissioner/appellate authority to decide the Appeal No. 2510 of 2025 ( Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P. ), filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, expeditiously within a specific period of time.

¶13

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was a license holder of the license bearing No. 6128 of NPB Rifle No. AB-13/02230 dated 28.9.2013. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to village rivalry, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 37 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) B.N.S. read with Section 30 of the Arms Act was lodged against the petitioner at P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah, wherein the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Trial Court vide order dated 6.11.2025 by giving him the benefit of doubt. He next submits that during pendency of the aforesaid trial, the District Magistrate, Auraiya initiated proceedings against the petitioner u/s 17(3) Arms Act, in response to which the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 30.5.2025. However, the District Magistrate, without appreciating the facts of the case and the reply of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 10.6.2025 in Case No. 495 of 2025 whereby the arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved the appeal on 1.8.2025 and since then the appeal is pending.

¶14

On perusal of the Trial Court's order dated 6.11.2025 by which the petitioner has been acquitted, it appears that the complaint, on the basis of

¶15

WRIC No. 11402 of 2026

¶16

¶17

which the F.I.R. was registered against the applicant, has turned hostile and thereby the benefit of doubt was granted to the petitioner. The aforesaid prosecution case was that the petitioner, in inebriated stage, abused the covillagers and fired four shots in air wherein the used cartridges were recovered from the spot.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel seeks and is granted time to take instructions.

¶19

Put up this case as fresh on 15.4.2026 at 2:00 P.M.

¶20

April 1, 2026 Vandana

¶21

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Soni @ Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Alok Kumar Tripathi vs Up State Information Commission through Its Secretary and 3 Others

Naveen Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udhav Prasad vs the Additional District Magistrate and 18 Others

Amvarwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others