Kamaal R Khan granted bail as court finds no prima facie case under BNS or Arms Act

Kamaal R Khan granted bail as court finds no prima facie case under BNS or Arms Act

• Kamaal R Khan granted bail after court questioned prosecution's evidence.
• Defence argued no intent or knowledge for culpable homicide under BNS.
• Court noted Khan's licensed firearm was seized, reducing risk of misuse.

Did our AI summary help?

Controversial actor and social media personality Kamaal R Khan was granted bail after a court closely examined the prosecution’s claims and the defence’s detailed objections, particularly concerning the applicability of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.

During the hearing, Khan’s counsel strongly contested the invocation of Section 110 of the BNS, which deals with attempts to commit culpable homicide. The defence argued that the core requirements of the provision, namely intention and knowledge, were completely absent in the present case. It was submitted that there was no material on record to suggest that Khan had any intention to cause harm or that he possessed knowledge that his alleged act could endanger life.

The defence also challenged the applicability of the Arms Act, pointing out that Kamaal is a licensed firearm holder. His counsel stressed that no ballistic or forensic report had been produced to conclusively establish that the bullets allegedly recovered were fired from Khan’s weapon. In the absence of such scientific evidence, the prosecution’s case, it was argued, remained speculative.

Further, the court was informed that Khan’s firearm had already been seized by the authorities, thereby eliminating any possibility of future misuse. The defence emphasised that continued custody served no purpose once the weapon was secured.

Also Read; Vishal Bhardwaj reacts to Arijit Singh’s retirement: “This is unfair, take back your Sanyas”

Addressing the prosecution’s narrative, Khan’s counsel highlighted the absence of any alleged motive. There was no claim, she pointed out, that Khan aimed at the complainants or their building. Instead, the allegation relied solely on hearsay, based on an unnamed witness who claimed to have heard gunshots originating from Khan’s building. The defence described this claim as “absurd and malicious”, arguing that it lacked credibility and direct evidence.

A significant technical argument was also placed before the court regarding distance and feasibility. The defence stated that the effective range of the firearm in question is approximately 20 metres, whereas the distance between the complainant’s balcony and Khan’s residence exceeds 1,500 metres. This, according to the defence, made the allegation of firing towards the complainant’s premises physically impossible.

On the issue of allegedly missing cartridges, the defence clarified that any discrepancy in ammunition accounting would, at most, amount to an administrative lapse under the Arms Act. Such a lapse, it was argued, attracts only a fine and does not constitute a criminal offence under the BNS. The court was further informed that the Arms Rules allow licensed holders to purchase up to 200 cartridges annually, making the possession of 22 cartridges entirely lawful and non-incriminatory.