Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed regarding an FIR registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(‘BNS’) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’) due to alleged illegal mining in river Satluj, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the application, holding that the humanity has suffered enough environmental damage, especially to the Satluj river and the environment at large, the offence of illegal mining in rivers had to be taken seriously.
Background
In the case at hand, allegedly, a JCB machine indulging in illegal mining in Satluj River was intercepted by the police. The driver of the said JCB machine fled away from the spot, but the JCB was found to be registered in the name of the accused.
The accused contended that he was given a contract to fill mud at the water tank of the village via a Gram Panchayat Resolution (‘the Resolution’). He contended that the JCB machine was extracting sand from the road, and was hence, present in the village to commence earthwork. He further alleged that reasons and grounds of arrest have not yet been communicated to him.
Analysis
On the submission regarding non-communication of the reasons and grounds of arrest, the Court opined that while the same are to be communicated to the person at the time of the arrest, in the present petition, the accused merely apprehended arrest and had not yet been arrested.
Regarding the issue of the availability/non-availability of the JCB machine at the relevant spot, the Court held that it was a matter of evidence, which was the domain of the Trial Court and not of the High Court while considering the prayer for bail.
As far as the Resolution was concerned, the Court cast serious doubt about its authenticity and genuineness since the date of the said Resolution was the same as the date of the incident hence, the possibility of the said document being manufactured could not be ruled out.
Given the above and the environmental damage, especially to the Satluj River and the environment at large, the Court held that the offence of illegal mining in rivers needed to be taken seriously despite less punishment prescribed under law. Thus, the Court deemed it appropriate not to interfere in the matter and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
[Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 32359 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 13-06-2025]
*Order authored by: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Lakhwinder Singh Mann
For the respondent: Jastej Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab