Bogus arms licence case: Gujarat High Court denies anticipatory bail to UP govt clerk
According to Gujarat ATS, the weapon clerk at government office in Etah, in collusion with others, misused GoI portal NDAL-ALIS for their pecuniary gain amounting to Rs 98.32 lakh
The court labeled the manipulation of the NDAL-ALIS portal a serious "white-collar" crime against public welfare. (Image generated using AI) Calling the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS)’s case of an alleged forged arms licence racket a “white collar and socioeconomic offence” affecting “the largest societal interest and public welfare”, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of an Uttar Pradesh government weapon clerk accused of helping manipulate official arms licence data and facilitating the issuance of bogus licences used to procure weapons and live cartridges by 12 persons arrested from Ahmedabad.
Justice H D Suthar of the Gujarat High Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by U K Jaypalsinh, who identified himself as a weapon clerk at a government office in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution case is that Jaypalsinh, in collusion and connivance with an advocate and with the assistance of Pawan Kumar Ganga Prasad Lodi (computer operator) and Rajkumar Babulal (clerk), misused the Government of India portal NDAL-ALIS by using unique identification numbers (UINs) for “their pecuniary gain” amounting to Rs 98.32 lakh.
The High Court noted that investigation reveals that “details of previously issued genuine arms licences, including names, validity and territorial particulars, were deleted from the system and, by editing the data on the official website, forged arms licences came to be issued in place of the original licences”. The court observed that the accused had prima facie played an active role in tampering with government records and had deliberately avoided investigation despite repeated notices.
The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to “unearth the truth” in the large-scale forged arms licence scam being investigated by the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad.
The case arises from an FIR registered by the ATS alleging that forged arms licences issued between 2019 and 2022 were used extensively for possessing revolvers, pistols and live cartridges. The offences invoked include provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to forgery and falsification of records, along with Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act.
The prosecution further alleged that over Rs 98.32 lakh was collected through cash and banking transactions from at least 12 persons arrested from Ahmedabad in connection with the racket. The forged licences were allegedly used to procure firearms from a gun house in Uttar Pradesh, and arms and cartridges were recovered during the investigation.
Seeking anticipatory bail, counsel for the applicant argued that the accused was a government servant who had been “falsely implicated” and had no direct role in the alleged offence. It was submitted that the actual manipulation of the portal was carried out by co-accused Pawan Kumar, an outsourced data entry operator who had complete access to the online portal and passwords.
The defence also argued that the complaint had been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly three years and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the applicant had neither joined nor cooperated with the investigation despite issuance of notices under Section 35 of the BNSS. The prosecution contended that the applicant had actively participated in forging licences and tampering with online government data while working as a weapon clerk. The prosecution also submitted that anticipatory bail pleas of co-accused had been rejected similarly and Pawan Kumar was presently in custody after rejection of his regular bail application. The state also pointed out that Jaypalsinh was absconding and named in the chargesheet, making the anticipatory bail plea “not maintainable”.
Refusing relief, the High Court noted that the material collected during investigation “prima facie indicates that the present applicant had edited licence data using the UIN numbers and thereafter such licences came to be transferred to Gujarat.”
The court also noted that despite being a government servant, Jaypalsinh evaded investigation, even though notices were issued to him through the Collector, Etah. The judgment observed that such conduct “prima facie indicates an attempt on the part of the applicant to thwart the investigation proceedings.”
The judgement noted that anticipatory bail is an “extraordinary remedy” to be exercised sparingly, especially in economic offences, “as they affect the economic fabric of the society.”
The Court said, “The alleged offence is in nature of white collar… not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved… the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights…”
The HC held that grant of anticipatory bail in the case could hamper effective investigation, as the accused was absconding and custodial interrogation was required. Considering the submissions of the prosecution, the court observed that “custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth.”
Share
