Kamal R Khan was released on bail by the Andheri Magistrate Court on Friday in relation to the Lokhandwala firing episode, after bullets were discovered embedded inside a residential building earlier this month.
The matter first surfaced on January 18 when residents found bullets inside the apartments of writer Neeraj Mishra and model Prateek Baid in a housing complex in Lokhandwala. Investigators noted damage marks on a plywood cabinet and on interior walls, but fortunately no resident was hurt.
Police initially reviewed CCTV recordings from the society but did not see any suspicious movement in or out of the premises at the relevant time. They then turned to forensic experts to identify the weapon type. Using ballistic inputs and estimated firing range, officers began examining licensed gun owners living nearby.
Khan was detained on January 24 after police asserted that the bullets were consistent with those fired from his licensed 7.65 mm Mauser pistol.
Representing him, advocate Sana Raees Khan argued in court that the detention itself was unlawful and arbitrary because a mandatory prior notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita had not been issued. She also said he was not properly informed of the grounds for his arrest, either verbally or in writing, which she claimed violated constitutional safeguards and procedural law.
The defence maintained that the core requirements of Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—especially the elements of intention and knowledge—were not satisfied. It further argued that the Arms Act provisions cited by police did not apply because Khan legally holds a firearm licence.
His lawyer emphasised that no conclusive ballistic or forensic report had been presented in court directly linking the recovered bullets to his gun. She noted that the pistol had already been seized by authorities, removing any risk of further use.
The defence also highlighted that there was no suggested motive and no allegation that Khan deliberately targeted the building or its occupants. It described the case as relying on hearsay from an unidentified person who allegedly heard gunshots from his building, calling this claim baseless and driven by malice.
Another key argument concerned distance. The defence said the weapon’s effective range is about 20 metres, whereas the gap between Khan’s residence and the complainant’s balcony is over 1,500 metres, making such a shot practically impossible.
On the issue of missing cartridges, the defence contended that even if some rounds were unaccounted for, that would amount only to a minor administrative lapse under arms regulations, punishable by a fine rather than a serious criminal charge. It also pointed out that licensed owners are permitted to buy up to 200 cartridges annually, so possession of 22 cartridges could not be treated as suspicious.
