World · South & Central Asia · 16 hrs ago
Supreme Court orders return of acquitted bodyguard’s revolver
The Supreme Court ordered Maharashtra to return a bodyguard’s revolver within eight weeks, subject to legal requirements.
Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus works in private security, and the licensed weapon is needed to find work in his field.
Police seized it in 2012 during a criminal investigation in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
Yunus and seven other accused were acquitted in 2013, but the revolver remained with the authorities while an appeal against the acquittal was pending.
The Supreme Court said the pending appeal alone did not justify keeping the weapon indefinitely, especially as its loss affected Yunus’s livelihood.
The order does not decide the pending appeal, which remains before the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court ordered Maharashtra to return Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus’s licensed revolver within eight weeks, subject to Arms Act requirements.
The revolver had been seized in 2012 during a criminal investigation, and Yunus was acquitted in 2013.
The court said that a pending appeal against his acquittal alone could not justify keeping the weapon indefinitely.
Yunus told courts he needed the revolver to find work in the private security sector and support his family of six.
The Supreme Court said its order would not affect the pending appeal before the Bombay High Court.
- Who
- Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus, a private bodyguard, and the Supreme Court.
- What
- The court ordered Maharashtra to return Yunus’s licensed revolver within eight weeks, subject to applicable Arms Act requirements.
- When
- The Supreme Court issued the order recently; the exact date is not stated.
- Where
- Maharashtra. The case began in Jalgaon and the acquittal appeal is pending before the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The court said a pending appeal alone did not justify retaining the revolver indefinitely, and its loss affected Yunus’s livelihood.
This story does not have two clearly opposing sides.
Police seized Yunus’s licensed revolver during an investigation in Jalgaon.
A sessions court acquitted all eight accused and directed that seized articles be returned after the appeal period expired.
Yunus applied to the sessions court for the return of his revolver.
The sessions court rejected his application because an appeal against the acquittal was pending.
The Bombay High Court directed that his application be heard with the appeals against acquittal.
The Supreme Court ordered Maharashtra to return the revolver within eight weeks, subject to Arms Act requirements.
- Accused
- Yunus was the eighth accused in the case.
- Weapon
- Licensed revolver seized in 2012.
- Acquittal
- All eight accused were acquitted in March 2013.
- Family
- Yunus was responsible for maintaining a family of six.
- Return deadline
- Within eight weeks, subject to applicable Arms Act requirements.
What people are saying
Pendency of appeals by itself does not determine petitioner’s entitlement for the return of the revolver