On January 13, 2023, a conflict occurred at an apartment complex opposite the Ghazipur police station in Indiranagar, Uttar Pradesh state, Lucknow, India. Lucknow is in north central India, not far from the border of Nepal. The conflict was reported to include two groups of young people in a dispute, a bit before midnight. Early reports said the dispute was over a parking spot, or possibly a complaint of the lack of a security guard. One of the people in the dispute, Sunil Dutt Tripathi, was attacked and suffered injuries. He fired his licensed "Glock" pistol in the air to stop the attack. No one on the other side of the dispute was injured, according to documents filed with the High Court in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh, in a decision released in January of 2024, about a year later.
The day after the incident, the treasurer of the residents' association filed a complaint with the police, claiming Tripathi had attempted murder. From indiatimes.com:
“Sachin and his associates started firing on us with an intention to kill me and others. There was a stampede-like situation as people started running helter-skelter. Luckily, no one suffered any injury,” Arora alleged.
By January 15, 2023, the local police charged Tripathi with several crimes, including attempted murder, and impounded his pistol, which was legally licensed. Tripani was released on bail. It appears the charges were dropped. No proceedings were initiated to cancel his firearms license. The police refused to return the pistol and cartridges, claiming Tripani had violated the conditions of Section 30 of the Arms Act. Tripani appealed the decision to the Allahhabad High Court in Lucknow. The High Court found firing a licensed weapon in self-defense is not a violation of the Arms Act:
Section 30 of the Arms Act declares violation of the conditions of Arms License as an offence, but firing from a licensed weapon in self-defense is a violation of which condition of the Arms Act, neither has the learned Magistrate mentioned in the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 nor was the learned Additional Government Advocate able to tell the Court.
The High Court noted Tripathi and the people he was defending were the only people injured in the dispute, and no one was injured when Tripathi fired his "Glock". The High Court ordered the pistol and ammunition returned to Tripathi.
Analysis:
The neighborhood mentioned where the dispute occurred is described as a "posh" one, owned and operated by the government, with 400,000 residents. It is not a slum. India is a socialist country of sorts.
It is very difficult and expensive to obtain a permit to keep and carry a pistol for self-defense in India. If the pistol was actually a Glock (firearms reporting in India is even worse for technical details than in the USA), the cost of the pistol would be several thousand U.S. dollars, minimum. More likely it was a .32 semi-auto made in India. It is very difficult and expensive to obtain firearms made outside of India, in India. If there were a credible case against Tripathi, it is unlikely the pistol would have been returned. There would be ample evidence to show he violated the terms of his pistol license. The expense and difficulty of obtaining a license in India limit them to people of considerable means. This explains his ability to challenge the refusal of the police to release his firearm. In spite of India's notorious "red tape", all of this happened in less than a year. This case may set precedent in India, showing firing a licensed gun in self defense is legal conduct.
A case in California, where millions of dollars of guns were impounded because of bureaucratic errors, was resolved in eight months. In the California case, no charges were ever brought. A raid was conducted and the guns impounded, without any arrest.
This correspondent may gain access to more details about this case from associates in India.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment