Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Agniveer Personnel Over Discovery Of Ammunition In Flight Baggage
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against an Agniveer— attached with a unit of the Indian Army, over discovery of live ammunition from his baggage while travelling from Delhi to Kolkata.Justice Amit Mahajn observed that the case seems to be of Agniveer's oversight and “mere custody (of ammunition), without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under...
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against an Agniveer— attached with a unit of the Indian Army, over discovery of live ammunition from his baggage while travelling from Delhi to Kolkata.
Justice Amit Mahajn observed that the case seems to be of Agniveer's oversight and “mere custody (of ammunition), without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act.”
The Petitioner was booked by the IGI Airport Police Station under Sections 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, upon recovery of one live 5.56mm lNSAS Rifle round.
Petitioner submitted he was posted at Jammu in a unit which is located in a counter insurgency area and he was issued ammunition with magazines along with the weapons for guard and operational duties.
This was verified by the Police from the Major Quartermaster for Commanding Officer.
Petitioner thus claimed that the ammunition was inadvertently left in his bag and as such, the offence alleged is not made out in absence of 'conscious possession'.
The High Court then perused Section 25 and said the term 'possession' refers to possession backed by the requisite mental element.
“It is to be kept in mind that the arms which are alleged to be carried by the petitioner is not a gun but a single Rifle round. The version of the petitioner is a plausible one. The State has not alleged that the possession was conscious or there was some mens rea behind carrying the cartridge,” it thus said.
It is also worth noting, the Court said, that Section 45(d) of the Arms Act does not make the acquisition/ possession or carrying of minor parts of arms or ammunition (which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts) an offence under the Arms Act.
As such, the Court quashed the FIR and directed the Investigating Officer to release the seized ammunition to the Petitioner.
Appearance: Mr. Kshitij Gaur, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) for the State along with Priyam Agarwal & Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya, Advs. W/SI Jyoti Singh, PS IGI Airport.
Case title: Ritesh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1080
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 2680/2025