In a critical ruling on May 14, 2024, the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri A. A. Kulkarni, granted bail to Rahul Madanlal Ahirwar, an applicant accused under the Indian Arms Act. The applicant, charged under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act in connection with C.R. No. 361/2024 registered at Dadar Railway Police Station, was released on bail primarily because the court found that no prima facie offense was made out under the relevant sections, as no arms or bullets were seized from his possession. This decision, documented as Criminal Bail Application No. 1207 of 2024, emphasizes the importance of material evidence—the actual recovery of illegal arms—to sustain charges under the Arms Act and justifies granting bail when such evidence is absent.

The core of the prosecution’s case was not the physical recovery of an illegal weapon from the applicant but rather evidence gathered from digital communication. The applicant was arrested based on a WhatsApp chat found on his mobile phone, which allegedly contained an advertisement for the sale of bullets. The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Iqbal Solkar, vehemently opposed the bail plea. Their contention was that the investigation was still ongoing to determine the source of the firearms and bullets the applicant was allegedly advertising. They argued that the applicant’s connection with a co-accused, Sachin Jadhav, was being probed and expressed concern about the potential for the applicant to re-engage in the sale of firearms, especially given the “background of election conducted,” suggesting the seriousness of the allegation in a sensitive political environment.

However, the defense, led by Ld. Adv. Ms. Smita Pawar, mounted a strong counter-argument. The defense pointed out that despite the allegations, no arms or ammunition were seized from the applicant’s possession. They stressed that the only evidence was the WhatsApp chat, and since no discovery of a bullet was given nor was any weapon found, a prima facie case for an offense under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act was not established. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the applicant had already undergone sufficient police custody and was currently in judicial custody, and there was no need for his further detention.

In its detailed analysis, the court placed significant weight on the absence of physical recovery. The order explicitly states that “prima facie it is clear that no offence is made against the applicant punishable under Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act” and that “No other offence is registered against the applicant.” The judge also noted that “Nothing is objectionable, seized at the instance of the applicant connecting him with business of sale of arms.” The court concluded that since the essential material element for the offense—the recovery of the illegal arm or ammunition—was missing, and the investigation did not require the applicant’s further detention, his liberty should be restored.

Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of Rahul Madanlal Ahirwar on furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 25,000/-. To ensure the interests of justice were protected, the court imposed a set of standard conditions. These included the requirements that the applicant attend Dadar Railway Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer on notice, not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses, and not leave India without the Court’s prior permission. The court also granted a request for a provisional cash surety for eight weeks, facilitating the applicant’s immediate release. This ruling serves as a crucial legal affirmation that mere communication or advertisement, without the physical recovery of the illegal article, may not be enough to warrant the continued detention of an accused under the stringent provisions of the Arms Act.