The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for thorough investigation into the role of all involved parties in illegal activities, as well as the consideration of exceptional circumstances such as the Covid-19 Pandemic in bail decisions.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Pawan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Nitin Goyal, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

The applicant has filed this second bail application under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 29-6-2020 by Police Station Panihar, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 68/2020 registered for offence under sections 379 and 414 of Indian Penal Code and 2/21 of Mines and Mineral Rules. Allegations are of illegal transportation of sand without any royalty receipt or any legal permission.

2. It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 29-6-2020 on false pretext whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that tractor was being driven by son (Ramu) of the owner (Ramnaresh) of the vehicle and both father and son implicated the applicant representing him to be the driver of vehicle. Since he is semi-literate (primary pass) therefore, he could not understand the nitty-gritty of procedure and further interesting point is that in arrest memo, seizure memo and memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act of applicant prepared by the police are being signed by the owner of the tractor as one of the witnesses. Police very cleverly converted the real culprit into witness of the case and present applicant has been falsely implicated. As per the version of owner of tractor, applicant borrowed the tractor for agriculture purpose and allegedly used in transportation of illegal minerals but in reality, it was owner of the tractor-Ramnaresh and his son-Ramu who were causing transportation and storage of minerals without royalty. On his behalf, his father gave an affidavit regarding above-mentioned fact of role of owner. As per section 4(1-A) read with section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity “Act, 1957”) case has not been investigated properly by the police and present applicant has been framed.

3. Applicant is in confinement since 29-6-2020 and in his absence his family is finding hard to make both the ends meet. Looking to the challenging period of Covid-19 Pandemic and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and he is the victim of the mens rea of owner of the tractor in collusion with Police Authority, his case may be considered for bail. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in trial. Under these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that on the basis of memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he has been implicated. So far as allegations regarding role of owner of the vehicle and his son is concerned, their role shall be taken care of in accordance with law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.

6. This is a case where applicant is facing allegation of offence under section 379, 414 of Indian Penal Code read with section 4/21 of the Act, 1957. Section 4(1) and 4(1-A) of Act, 1957 indicate that if a person transports or stores or causes to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise, than in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1957 and Rules made thereunder, then he is liable to be punished as per section 21 of the Act, 1957 and same is reproduced for ready reference : –

21. Penalties.? (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.

(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine whi