Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038902
CRM-M-14582-2025 (O&M) 1
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14582-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.03.2025
ANIL SHARMA ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case
bearing FIR No. 88 dated 03.07.2023 registered under Sections 21(1) and 4(1)
of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act 1957 and Section 379
IPC at Police Station Nangal District Rupnagar.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 02.07.2023 at 11:42
pm a complaint was received from Sub Divisional Officer Water Drainage-cum-
Mining Sub-Division Nangal and in order to resolve the complaint it was
ordered to check the Ganga Stone Crusher Nangran, which was acted upon and
on reaching the said crusher on 03 July, 2023 at 12:25 am it was seen that one
mining team was in operation and the machine operator and his partner were at
the hill, who had fled away after leaving the machine. The colour of the machine
was yellow JCB brand, JCB NXT whose Co-ordinate is (N-31.1643944) (E-
76.192176) and according to the above mentioned facts, that machine seemed to
be carrying out illegal mining. In view of the aforesaid allegation, present FIR
was lodged.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038902
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that any
contravention under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act
1957 is a cognizable offence and punishable under Section 21 the aforesaid Act,
which provides maximum sentence upto 05 years and Section 379 of Indian
Penal Code has been added just to aggravate the offence and the registration of
the FIR under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is illegal in view of the provi-
sions contained in Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. as Mines and Minerals (Regulation
of Development) Act 1957 is a special enactment and regulating the extraction
of Mines and Minerals and any contravention of the Act and Rules made
therein are squarely dealt with by the provisions of the above Act and it is a trite
law that if a special statute laid down procedure, the one laid under the general
provisions of IPC would not be attracted as authoritatively held by the Apex
Court in Jeewan Ram and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
2009(7) SCC 526 and judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-29708-2014
titled as Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana decided on 11.09.2015.
Learned counsel further contends that petitioner is not named in the FIR nor he
was arrested at the spot and no gravel or sand was recovered from the posses-
sion of the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate and
per contra opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the
ground that petitioner is owner of JCB machine, which clearly proves his
complicity that he is involved into illegal mining and he is a habitual offender
and involved in one more case of similar nature. However, he could not
controvert the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Prem Singla has
been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 15.02.2024 passed
in CRM-M-7018-2024.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038902
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case, it transpires that petitioner is behind the bars since
17.01.2025. Investigation of the case has been concluded by the Investigating
Agency and the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted on
01.02.2024. Trial of the case has not commenced as none out of 15 prosecution
witnesses, has been examined so far. So further incarceration of the petitioner
without there being the prospect of the conclusion of the trial in the near future,
would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Culpability, if any,
would be determined at the time of the trial.
A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI' (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of under-
trial prisoner in India has observed:
"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed
before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons
constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not
even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence,
being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not
only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture
of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it cer-
tainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the inves-
tigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure result-
ing in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy,
there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptu-
ally opposite to each other."
6. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC
382, the involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole
ground to deny him the concession of bail.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038902
7. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner- Anil Sharma is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court.
8. 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.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
