Allowed¶31

Neeraj Shroff v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2026WPC/6698/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms Act licence cancellation and restoration; release of confiscated double barrel gun by mandamus; Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate Deoghar; Appellate Authority Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division Dumka order 09.03.2022; acquittal 13.06.2022 in G.R. Case No.2206 of 2021 / Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.818 of 2018; Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 307, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; detention pending review application disallowed; return of firearm within two weeks; Jharkhand High Court, W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2022, Ananda Sen, J., 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Release and return of the petitioner's confiscated double barrel gun; Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar directed to return it to the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶31

Neeraj Shroff Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release and return of the petitioner's confiscated double barrel gun; Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar directed to return it to the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's double barrel gun, confiscated by the State authorities, should be returned to him in view of the restoration of his Arms licence by the Appellate Authority and his subsequent acquittal in the connected criminal case. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since the Appellate Authority under the Arms Act had restored the petitioner's licence and the criminal case ended in his acquittal, the Arms seized and kept in custody of the respondents must be returned to the petitioner.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The respondent State Authorities cannot detain the petitioner's Arms on the ground that they intend to file a review application challenging the restoration of his Arms licence.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, is directed to ensure that the petitioner's double barrel gun is returned to him within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2022 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Ananda Sen, J., decided 20.07.2026) - allowed. Petitioner Neeraj Shroff, holder of Arms licence No.4/2006 for a double barrel gun, had his licence cancelled by the District Magistrate, Deoghar vide order dated 16.01.2019 after he was implicated in G.R. Case No.2206 of 2021 (Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.818 of 2018) under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 307 and 34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. An earlier writ (W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2019) was withdrawn on 23.10.2019 with liberty to pursue alternative remedy; the Appellate Authority (Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) allowed his appeal vide order dated 09.03.2022, setting aside the cancellation, and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 13.06.2022. Holding that the State cannot detain the seized arm merely on the ground that it intends to file a review application against the restoration order, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to return the double barrel gun to the petitioner within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

2026:JHHC:21423

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6698 of 2022

¶3

Neeraj Shroff, son of Kailash Nath Shroff, resident of Ganga Hari Lane, Laxmi Market, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Deoghar, officiating at Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

¶8

Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, officiating at New Collectoriate Building Dumka.

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Sabi Uddin, Advocate

¶12

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaantanu Gupta, JC to AAG-III Mr. Sahbaj Aktar, AC to AAG-III

¶13

16/ 20.07.2026

¶14

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶15

"for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 2 to immediately and forthwith release the arm (double barrel gun) of the petitioner that has been illegally and unlawfully confiscated by the said respondent in complete disregard to the fact that the respondent no. 3 who is the competent authority under the Arms Act has already quashed the order dated 09.03.2022 cancelling the license of the petitioner's arm after proper consideration of facts and law."

¶16

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶17

3. A perusal of the aforesaid prayer makes it clear that the

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:21423

¶20

petitioner seeks his Arm i.e. double barrel gun, which was confiscated by the State Authorities, to be returned to him, in view of the fact that the order by which the Arms license of the petitioner was cancelled, was set aside by the Appellate Authority.

¶21

4. The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner is a licensee of Arms, bearing license No.4/2006. On the strength of said license, the petitioner purchased a double barrel gun.

¶22

4.1. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case being G.R. Case No.2206 of 2021 arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.818 of 2018, registered under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 307 and 34 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶23

4.2. A proceeding to cancel the Arms license of the petitioner had also been initiated by the respondents and ultimately vide order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit dated 13.03.2023), the Arms license of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶24

4.3. Being aggrieved of the said order of cancellation, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2019, which was permitted to be withdrawn by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2019, with liberty to the petitioner to search out the other alternative remedy.

¶25

4.4. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), allowed the said Appeal and set aside the order of cancellation which was passed by the District Magistrate, Deoghar.

¶26

¶27

2026:JHHC:21423

¶28

4.5. Vide judgment dated 13.06.2022, the criminal case being G.R. Case No.2206 of 2021, arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.818 of 2018, which was instituted against the petitioner, ended up in acquittal.

¶29

5. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, more particularly the fact that the Appellate Authority under the Arms Act, had restored the license in favour of the petitioner, and thereafter the criminal case ended up in his acquittal; the respondent – State Authorities cannot detain the Arms of the petitioner by taking a ground that they are intended to file a review application challenging the order of restoration of the Arms license granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

5.1. Thus, the Arms which had been seized and kept in custody of the respondents, needs to be returned to the petitioner.

¶31

5.2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, is directed to ensure that the double barrel gun of the petitioner be returned to him, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands allowed .

¶32

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶33

20th July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

¶34

Uploaded on 23.07.2026

¶35

Neeraj Shroff v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Shroff v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Diwakar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punam Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Urban Development Department