No Anticipatory Bail For Absconding Government Servant In Bogus Arms Licence Racket: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a government servant allegedly involved in a massive racket of issuing forged arms licences by tampering with official portals, emphasizing that the societal interest outweighs personal liberty in serious socio-economic offences.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, presiding over the matter, heard the successive application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, a weapon clerk, was seeking protection from arrest in connection with an FIR registered by the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959.

Court Prioritizes Societal Interest Over Personal Liberty

The Court highlighted the gravity of the accusations, noting that forged licences were used to procure lethal weapons on a large scale. While acknowledging the safeguards for personal liberty, the Court maintained that a delicate balance must be struck when public welfare is at stake. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "the present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the discovery of material facts and to relevant information."

Absconding Conduct and Investigation Necessity

A critical factor in the Court's decision was the applicant's conduct. Despite being a government servant and receiving notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation. The Court noted that the applicant was listed as an absconder in the charge-sheet. Relying on State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj ( "2023 INSC 784": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 322), Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2012) 8 SCC 730": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 331), Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra ( "2022 (8) SCC 282": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 902), Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar ( "2021 SCC OnLine SC 955": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 1677), Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 282": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 521), and Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda ( "2025 INSC 477": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 625), the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is generally not maintainable for an absconder.

Regarding the need for custodial interrogation, the Court observed that such a process is essential to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy. Referring to Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. ( "2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 1240), the bench noted that even if custodial interrogation isn't the sole ground for rejection, the prima facie involvement in a serious crime cannot be overlooked. The Court further cited State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma, Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B., and P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement ( "AIR 2019 SC 4198": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2176) to emphasize that granting anticipatory bail in economic offences could hamper effective investigation.

Background:

The case originated from the discovery of bogus arms licences issued between 2019 and 2022. Investigations revealed that the accused individuals, including the applicant who served as a weapon clerk, allegedly colluded to misuse the National Database of Arms Licenses-Arms License Issuance System (NDAL-ALIS) portal. It was alleged that genuine data was deleted and replaced with forged entries for pecuniary gain, amounting to over Rs. 98 lakhs received through various transactions. These forged licences were subsequently used to purchase arms and cartridges from gun houses in Uttar Pradesh.

The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that the computer operations were handled by an outsourced operator. However, the prosecution presented evidence indicating the applicant's active role in editing licence data using Unique Identification Numbers (UINs). Following the principles laid down in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. and Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana ( "AIR 2023 SC 3307": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 755) regarding the exercise of judicial discretion in serious offences, the Court dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant's expertise and status as an absconder posed a risk of tampering with evidence.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11058 of 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:32702
Case Title: UPENDRA KUMAR JAYPALSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR D S GADHVI, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 243