Navjot Sharma vs State Of Punjab - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 553

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 553

ANOOP CHITKARA
Navjot Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
17	18.03.2022	Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab	21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. As per the facts mentioned in the petition, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the ground that they have applied for the mining permit and illegal mining is going on.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. The petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 9 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

7. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exc