The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognizance of the possession and use of unlicensed firearms in Uttar Pradesh..While hearing a bail plea by a 73-year-old man accused of murdering a victim by firing a gun, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna took note of the evil of unlicensed firearms..The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit on the number of cases registered for the possession and use of unlicensed firearms. Additionally, it also sought for the State’s stand on the steps taken to tackle this issue. The government was granted four weeks to submit its reply..The petitioner was denied bail by the Allahabad High Court in a case where he and other co-accused allegedly engaged in indiscriminate firing on the complainant and seven others.According to the prosecution, this was done on account of previous enmity between the parties..In the plea, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to consider that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the bullet that was fired did not match the gun recovered from him. Further, a co-accused had already been granted regular bail in the case..He also submitted that he had been in custody for more than 5 years. In this regard, the petition argued that the High Court had failed to consider that the health of the petitioner was deteriorating with advancing age. Thus, his further incarceration was clearly violative of his basic human rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognizance of the possession and use of unlicensed firearms in Uttar Pradesh..While hearing a bail plea by a 73-year-old man accused of murdering a victim by firing a gun, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna took note of the evil of unlicensed firearms..The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit on the number of cases registered for the possession and use of unlicensed firearms. Additionally, it also sought for the State’s stand on the steps taken to tackle this issue. The government was granted four weeks to submit its reply..The petitioner was denied bail by the Allahabad High Court in a case where he and other co-accused allegedly engaged in indiscriminate firing on the complainant and seven others.According to the prosecution, this was done on account of previous enmity between the parties..In the plea, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to consider that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the bullet that was fired did not match the gun recovered from him. Further, a co-accused had already been granted regular bail in the case..He also submitted that he had been in custody for more than 5 years. In this regard, the petition argued that the High Court had failed to consider that the health of the petitioner was deteriorating with advancing age. Thus, his further incarceration was clearly violative of his basic human rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 21 of the Constitution.
