Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fatma vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029675
2024:PHHC:029675
208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5194-2024
Date of decision: 01.03.2024
FATMA
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
Through instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail
in case FIR No. 0076 dated 14.09.2023 registered under Sections 379 of IPC
and Sections 21(1), 4(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development)
Act, 1957 and Sections 29, 30, 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 at
Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
2. On 01.02.2024, following order was passed:
"The present petition has been filed under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0076 dated 14.09.2023 registered
under Section 379 IPC and Sections 21 (1), 4 (1) of the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and Sections 29,
30, 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 at Police Station
Kiratpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia
contends that any contravention under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is cognizable and
punishable under Section 21 of the above Act. As such, FIR cannot
be registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
The Mines and Minerals (Development and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029675
CRM-M-5194-2024 2 2024:PHHC:029675
Regulation) Act, 1957 is special enactment regulating the
extraction of mines and minerals and as such any contraventions of
the Act or the Rules made therein are squarely dealt with by the
provisions of the above Act. It is well-settled principle of law that if
a special Statute lays down procedures, the one laid down under
the general provisions of IPC would not be attracted as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Jeewan Kumar Raut and another Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2009 (7) SCC 526 and the
judgment of this Court in 'Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of
Haryana' CRM-M-29708-2014 (O&M)'.
He further submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He relies upon judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1)
RCR(Criminal) 126 to contend that irrational and indiscriminate
arrest must be avoided and prays for anticipatory bail. It is further
contended that the co-accused has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed
in CRM-M No.59485 of 2023 titled as Manpreet Singh @ Mangi
Vs. State of Punjab.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara,
Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the meantime, keeping in view the law enunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI
(2022) 10 SCC 51; Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8
SCC 273 and Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, at the first instance, the
petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on
or before 09.02.2024 and on his doing so or in the event of arrest,
the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of
bail/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting
Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating
Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438
(2) Cr.P.C.
If the Investigating/Arresting Officer does not permit
the petitioner to join the investigation, the petitioner would appear
before the Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029675
CRM-M-5194-2024 3 2024:PHHC:029675
Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in
investigation, in terms of the order of this Court.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as
expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the
trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations
of this Court.
Adjourned to 01.03.2024."
3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Charan Singh,
submits that in compliance of order dated 01.02.2024, passed by this Court, the
petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further custodial
interrogation.
4. Keeping in view the statement made by learned State Counsel the
order dated 01.02.2024, is made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the
terms and conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed.
6. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of
opinion of this Court on merits of the case and trial Court shall proceed without
being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 01, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029675
3 of 3
