Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Umesh Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) Nos.2593, 2594, 2595 & 2596 of 2025
Decided On : 15-12- 2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhushree Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Anticipatory bail denied in illegal mining case despite suspended lease and political vendetta claims, emphasizing environmental harm, prima facie evidence from verified footage, need for custodial interrogation, and tampering risks.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 303(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, 49 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 21, 22 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Pre-arrest bail - Applications seeking anticipatory bail in case of illegal mining and mineral extraction despite suspension of mining lease - Operations confirmed continuing via CCTV footage and video recordings verified by forensic lab - Large quantities of extracted material seized - Lease suspended w.e.f specified date till another - Prior penalties imposed for over-production not deposited - Prima facie complicity established - Political vengeance claim rejected - Environmental degradation and threat to river ecology from illegal extraction highlighted - Power under Section 438 extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only - Balance between individual liberty and public interest, fair investigation required - Custodial interrogation necessary to disinter concealed information and prevent tampering - Apprehension of witness intimidation and repetition of offence due to influence - Petitions dismissed. (Paras 1, 3, 8-10, 13-25)

(B) Pre-arrest bail - Considerations - Nature and gravity of accusation; possibility of fleeing justice or tampering with evidence; impact on investigation; environmental offences like illegal mining not entitled to bail as they endanger ecosystem, biodiversity, river morphology - No grant where lease suspended yet extraction continues. (Paras 11, 15-20)

(C) Custodial interrogation - Superior to non-custodial for eliciting information in serious cases - Pre-arrest bail may reduce it to ritual, hampering probe into extent of crime. (Paras 23-25)

Facts of the case:
Petitions filed for pre-arrest bail in FIR registered for illegal mining by stone crusher post suspension of lease. Petitioner claimed valid lease till 2026, operations stopped earlier, political malice due to family member's political switch. Prosecution countered with evidence of ongoing extraction on specific date, seized materials, vehicles, CCTV DVR confirming presence of machinery and heaps of minerals; lease suspended, prior violations penalized.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie petitioners involved in continued illegal extraction despite suspension; no exceptional circumstances for anticipatory bail; custodial interrogation required; risk of interference in investigation.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail grantable in illegal mining case with strong evidence of violation post-lease suspension, claims of political vendetta, and need for custodial interrogation to probe environmental crime extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail extraordinary remedy, sparingly exercised; not in serious environmental offences like illegal mineral theft causing ecological harm; custodial interrogation essential where prima facie involvement shown via forensic-verified evidence; political influence heightens tampering risk; public interest in protecting environment outweighs individual liberty claims.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. illegal mining fir; petitioners claim political vendetta (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposing arguments on mining legality and bail (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. anticipatory bail extraordinary, exercised sparingly (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. prima facie continued mining despite suspension (Para 13 , 14)
5. illegal mining causes environmental degradation (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. no pre-arrest bail for illegal mining (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. influential petitioner may tamper or reoffend (Para 21 , 22)
8. custodial interrogation essential for investigation (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. petitions dismissed; limited to bail disposal (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 53/25 dated 12.08.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238, 49 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and Sections 21 and 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, (Mining Act) 1957 at Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that a rukka was received in the police station regarding the illegal mining of stones and gravel in the Pung Khad by Mahavir Stone Crusher, owned by Praveen Kumar. The police registered the FIR. The petitioner, Umesh Sharma, is the brother of Ashish Sharma, an independent member of the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh. He resigned from the membership of the Legislative Assembly and contested the election as a candidate of the rival political party. The registration of the FIR is a result of political vengeance. The valid mining lease was granted to Sh. Praveen Sharma, in the year 2011, which is valid till 2026. The stone crusher was also duly registered with the Mining Department. The mining operation was stopped w.e.f 15.03.2024. The information was supplied to the Department of Mining and the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board. There was no consumption of electricity except for the one used for watch and ward activities. The present proceedings are a result of malice being harboured against the petitioner’s brother. The petitioners would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. They would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petitions.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 12.08.2025, when they received a secret information at about 2:00 pm that Praveen Sharma, owner of Mahavir Stone Crusher and his employees were carrying out illegal mining by using JCB and Tippers. The police registered an FIR and investigated the matter. They found that Mahavir Stone Crusher was ordered to suspend the operation by mining officers on 15.03.2024, and the lease in its favour was suspended w.e.f 01.07.2025 till 15.09.2025. The police party reached the spot with Rajender Singh Up Pradhan, Ward members and officials of the Pollution Control Board. Satish Kumar Munshi of Mahavir Stone Crusher was found on the spot. A heap of stone boulders was lying on one side, and another heap of grit stone was lying towards the other side of the crusher. Crushed gravel was also found in the crusher. The police seized the CCTV Footage. In the meantime, Mining Inspector Suresh Kumar, Assistant Mining Inspectors Ashutosh Sharma and Bhupender Singh also arrived on the spot. The Police seized the boulders and the gravel. The User ID and password were not disclosed by Satish Kumar; hence, the police seized the DVR of the CCTV Footage and sent it to SFSL Junga. As per result of SFSL, JCB and Tipper were found parked at the spot, where the grit stone was found on 08.08.2025. The quantity of stone and gravel was found to be 4712.37 MT, and the quantity of old crushed gravel was found to be 1325.33 MT. Eye-witness Sunil Kumar video-recorded the illicit mining, which was sent to the SFSL and was confirmed to be correct. The record was seized from the Mining Department, and it was found that 109.8 Kanals of