Holding a licensed revolver for over a decade because an appeal against acquittal is pending cannot be justified, the Supreme Court has held, ordering the State of Maharashtra to hand back a weapon seized from a private bodyguard in 2012.
New Delhi: Within eight weeks of receiving the order, the State must return a licensed revolver to a private bodyguard from Jalgaon, subject to the requirements of the Arms Act, 1959, the Supreme Court has directed in a writ petition under Article 32, faulting the courts below for letting his application lie undecided because appeals against his acquittal were pending [Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus v. State of Maharashtra].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the order on October 16, 2026.
Why retention was not warranted
The Bench said the pendency of appeals does not by itself decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the weapon, and that both courts below “failed to consider the application on its own merits”. On the purpose of Section 452 CrPC, it held:
“The underlying principle of the provision, as recognized by this Court in several decisions, is that any seized property ought not to remain in the custody of the police or the court for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary.”
Noting that no other ground for retention had been shown, the Court added that the petitioner works in private security, needs the revolver to get employment and supports a family of six. It concluded:
“In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the continued retention of the revolver is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mere pendency of appeal against acquittal, cannot by itself, justify its continued retention.”
How the application stalled
The revolver was seized during investigation of FIR No. 2 of 2012 registered at Bazar Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, under Sections 307, 109 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 8. In 2013 the Sessions Court acquitted all eight accused and directed that seized items be returned after the appeal period.
On January 14, 2014, the petitioner applied under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the revolver, saying he could not find work without it and offering to abide by any conditions. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the plea because appeals against the acquittal were pending. On March 9, 2015, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad directed that his challenge, Criminal Application No. 4811 of 2014, be kept with those appeals. Both have remained pending since.
Eight weeks to comply
The State must hand over custody of the revolver within eight weeks of receiving the order, subject to compliance with the Arms Act. The pending Criminal Application No. 4811 of 2014 before the High Court stands disposed of. The Court made clear that its order does not affect the pending appeal against the acquittal, which the High Court will decide on its own merits.
A factor, not an automatic bar
Section 452 CrPC, now carried into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lets a trial court decide what happens to case property at the end of a trial. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said such property should not be held longer than necessary, and the order applies that principle to an acquitted person whose application sat unheard for over a decade.
The practical rule is that a pending appeal against acquittal is a factor, not an automatic bar. Courts must examine the claim for return on its merits, including the owner’s livelihood and whether any real ground for retention exists, while the licensing safeguards under the Arms Act continue to apply.
Case Title: Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 422 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
