SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1670

HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab., for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.(Oral) - Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 12.05.2022, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar, under Sections 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 Section 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top