Supreme Court: coercive possession of firearms not ‘conscious possession’ for Arms Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that mere recovery of unlicensed firearms from a person's house is not enough to prove guilt unless the prosecution establishes "conscious possession" by the accused. LiveLaw reports that the court upheld a Jharkhand High Court judgment acquitting a house owner who claimed extremists forced him at gunpoint to keep a country-made stein gun and ammunition at 4 am, before a police raid two hours later. The bench observed that coercive possession under threat to life cannot be termed conscious possession and cannot form the sole basis for a conviction.

In separate rulings, the court clarified several points under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. LiveLaw notes that under Section 187, police custody can be sought in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of detention, and courts cannot impose an absolute outer limit on such custody. The court also held that non-supply of a charge sheet copy to the accused after it has been filed within the statutory period does not entitle the accused to default bail. In a case involving a ₹3.81 crore cyber fraud, the court dismissed a plea for default bail on that ground.

Additionally, the court ruled that Section 38 of the BNSS guarantees an accused's right to meet an advocate during interrogation, but does not mandate the advocate's continuous physical presence throughout each interrogation session. The court said such an unqualified entitlement would travel beyond the scope of the provision. The rulings came in appeals including State of Jharkhand v. Jagdish Lakra and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju.