Sonu @ Surinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 418

ANOOP CHITKARA
Sonu @ Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Narender Singh Kamboj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

26.03.2022

Sadar Faridkot,

District Faridkot

379 IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) 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 14 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3. 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.

4. Ld. counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail contending that the petitioner has indulged in causing damage to environment through illegal and unscientific mining and transporting the material with permit and without paying the revenue.

REASONING:

5. 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 3 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

6. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does no