SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.61 dtd. 12/5/2022, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar, under Ss. 21(1) and 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the petitioner is not the owner of Rana Stone Crusher and rather, the same is owned by one Gurnam Singh; that the petitioner was earlier working in the said crusher, which is now lying closed; that the petitioner was not found present at the spot at the time of the alleged raid and that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. He further submits that it is not possible that the petitioner could have done such act; that an NOC was given by the Pollution Control Board in favour of the Rana Store Crusher and that as per Sec. 21(1) of the Act, there is no provision for lodging an FIR and only a complaint can be filed and that too by the Mining Officer.

(3.) On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that the place where the illegal mining was being done, is owned by Gurnam Singh; that, vide agreement dtd. 15/8/2021, the said land along with the machinery was taken on rent by the petitioner @ Rs.3,80,000.00per month and that as per the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayant Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 AIR (SC) 496, there is no bar in lodging the FIR in case of illegal mining.