Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Lal vs State Of Haryana on 6 August, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(208)
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision: 06.08.2024
Madan Lal ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate,
for Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.1940 dated
28.02.2024 under Section 379 IPC and Sections 21(1) & 21(4) of the Mines
and Mineral Act, 1957 registered at Police Station Haryana Estate
Enforcement Bureau, Hisar.
2. The present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of
Rajesh Kumar, Mining Officer, Mining and Geology Department, Hisar and
reads as under:-
From: Mining Officer, Mining and Geology Department Hisar.
To The SHO, Police Station Haryana State Enforcement
Bureau, Hisar. Memo No. Mining/Hisar/2045 dated 27.02.2024
Subject: Regarding taking legal action against the owner/driver
of tractor- trolley No.HR-16V-1521, being found involved in
Illegal Mining/Transportation. On the above subject, you are
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::2::
informed that on date 09.11.2023, undersigned Inspector
Rajesh Kumar, Mining Officer alongwith team of this office
consisting of Mrs. Sudesh Rani, Mining Guard and Sh. Sunil
Kumar, Driver and Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Sub-Inspector from PS
HSENB, Hisar in Government vehicle No. HR-70-GV-7378 of
this office were conducting checking. During the checking, the
above said tractor-trolley No.HR-16V-1521 was checked at
08:03 AM, at Tosham Road, near canal, in the area of Hansi,
Police District Hansi, the said tractor trolley was found loaded
with illegal minerals (stone dust) and the owner/driver of the
abovesaid tractor trolley did not have the e-Ravana/e-Transit,
issued by the Mines and Geology Department. Therefore, the
said tractor-trolley was seized/impounded, vide Endst No.Spl.1-
2, dated 09- 11-2023, by the checking team, as per the rules
102/104 of Haryana Minor Minerals Concession Stocking
Transportation and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules 2012
and orders of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi
dated 23.04.2019 and 19.02.2020 and under section 21 (4) of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, at
City Police Station, Hansi, Police District Hansi, copy thereof
is enclosed. Owner of said tractor-trolley, Sh. Madan Lal son of
Sh. Chhitar Lal, resident of Kirawad, Tehsil Tosham, District
Bhiwani, was issued notices for depositing the environmental
compensation amount, royalty and penalty amount for the price
of the mineral, vide notices No.Mining/HSR/1807-08, dated
06.12.2023 and Mining/HSR/1993-94, dated 11.01.2024, in
accordance with Rule 102/104 of the Haryana Minor Minerals
Concession, Stocking, Transportation and prevention of illegal
Mining Rules, 2012 and orders of Hon'ble National Green
Tribunal New Delhi, dated 23.04.2019 and 19.02.2020, but the
abovesaid owner of tractor- trolley has not deposited the
amount of fine in the Mines and Geology Department, Hisar for
the release of the above mentioned tractor-trolley, copies of
which are attached herewith. Therefore, you are requested to
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::3::
take appropriate further legal action against the driver of the
above mentioned tractor-trolley No.HR-16-V-1521, Sh. Arun
son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of village Kirawad, Tosham
District, Bhiwani who was found at the spot and as per the
photocopy of the RC received in the office the owner of the said
vehicle is Sh. Madan Lal son of Sh. Chhitar Lal R/o village
Kirawad, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, and a case be
registered & thoroughly investigated U/s 379 IPC for taking in
possession stolen mineral (stone dust) and for transportation of
illegal minerals U/s 21 (1) and 21 (4) of the Mines & Minerals
(D&R) Act 1957, for illegal mining and for violation of the
orders of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi and
further take legal action as per the rules. Sd/-Rajesh Kumar,
Mining Officer, Mines and Geology Department, Hisar. Mob.
No.97299-56812, No./Mining/Hisar/Date.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing is to be
recovered from his possession. He was of the age of 43 years old and
largely remained at home. As he was ready and willing to join the
investigation, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while
referring to the reply dated 09.05.2024 contends that the petitioner was the
owner of the offending tractor-trolley carrying illegal stone dust which
impounded/seized by the Department. As per the investigation conducted, it
had come on record that the petitioner had come to his residence on
08.11.2023 with the loaded tractor-trolley and on account of ill-health had
directed his son i.e. co-accused/Arun to dump the same at the stone crusher.
Thus, as the offence was established beyond doubt, he was not entitled to the
concession as prayed for.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::4::
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for
custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we
are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to
the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the
complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its
discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused
should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail
matters, we have noticed one common argument being
canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::5::
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
7. As per the allegations, the offending tractor-trolley was seized
with illegal stone dust. The same was being driven by the son of the
petitioner, namely, Arun and the owner thereof is the petitioner. As per the
investigation, it was the petitioner who had come to his residence with the
loaded tractor-trolley and had directed his son to dump the same at a stone
crusher at Hasangarh. Therefore, the offence stands prima facie established.
Further, the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion for which
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary and
therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
9. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100595
CRM-M-21414-2024 (O & M)
::6::
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
August 06, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
