- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
- /
- Use Of Firearms In Public Functions...
Use Of Firearms In Public Functions Widespread In Punjab, No Visible Change Despite Ban: High Court Seeks Response From DGP
Aiman J. Chishti
18 April 2024 1:25 PM IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken strong objection to the widespread use of firearms in public functions and the use of licensed guns to commit crimes in Punjab, observing that "there is no visible change" despite the ban.The Punjab Government in 2022 had banned use and display of firearms in public places and on social media and accordingly officers were instructed to conduct...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken strong objection to the widespread use of firearms in public functions and the use of licensed guns to commit crimes in Punjab, observing that "there is no visible change" despite the ban.
The Punjab Government in 2022 had banned use and display of firearms in public places and on social media and accordingly officers were instructed to conduct surprise visits in the areas falling under their respective jurisdiction.
Justice Harkesh Manuja observed, "Despite that (the ban) no visible change appears on the ground and while on one hand use of firearms in marriages and in public functions is widespread, on the other hand, licensed firearms are also being used to commit crimes."
The judge further opined that, "It appears that neither the rules and regulation for allotment of armed license are being enforced strictly in Punjab nor the aforesaid directions issued by this Court are being implemented in letter and spirit."
In light of the above, the Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to file his own affidavit before the next date to the following effects:
i) as to whether there is any protocol, guideline or criteria under the Arms Act, 1959, about granting of armed license in Punjab.
ii) How many armed licenses have been issued in Punjab in the past 5 years in addition to disclosing the count under which head they were issued.
iii) How many surprise visits have been conducted in each district since 13.11.2022 to check the display of firearms in public functions?
iv) What are the steps being taken to ensure that the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station as required under section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 is not being manipulated?
v) Any status/compliance report prepared in pursuance of instructions/ directions dated 13.11.2012 also be placed on record.
The development came while hearing an anticipatory bail petition of Gurbhej Singh, who was booked under Sections 307, 506, 188 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
It was alleged that one of the accomplices of the petitioner, namely, Prabhjot Singh carrying pistol in his hand fired shot upon the complainant, which hit him on his right and left side thighs and one fire shot hit on the central finger of his left hand and when one Gurvider Singh came forward to save him then Karamjit Singh took pistol from Prabhjot Singh and started firing upon Gurvinder Singh, which hit on his right side of the thigh.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "on daily basis, number of cases are being countered by this Court, wherein persons are carrying fire arms openly and inflicting injuries to others."
The Court referred to Reet Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab", [2019(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 580] wherein the High Court directed:
"No person, throughout the States of Punjab, Hayana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, shall carry any fire-arm to a fair, religious procession/marriage procession or other public assemblage or within the campus or precincts of any educational institution."
Justice Manuja also noted the banning of use and display of firearms by Punjab Government and directed the DGP to file his own affidavits with the details on guidelines on issuing arm license and action taken to implement the State's order.
The matter is listed for April 26, for further consideration.
K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Title: GURBHEJ SINGH ALIAS BHEJA VS STATE OF PUNJAB