IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:25.03.2026 Dharam Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Satya Veer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police Station Petitioner No.

(s)

Dharam 1190 25.07.2025 21(1) of Mines and HSENB, Ambala Singh, aged Minerals about 41 (Development and years Regulation) Act, 1957 and 303(2) of BNS

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on 01.09.2025 following was recorded:

“1.xxx

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the tractor bearing registration No. HR 32G 0791, along with its attached trolley, was seized by the Mining Department on the allegation that it was being used for transporting sand. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was, in fact, being used for the religious purpose, specifically, for donating materials for the construction of a Mandir at Goraksh Teela, Goga Madi village, Kalhedi.

3. In support of this claim, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the donation slip dated 06.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), which, according to him, evidences the bona fide of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said donation slip has not been verified by the investigating officer from the members of the Managing Committee of the Mandir.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the vehicle in question has no prior history of being used for illegal transportation of minerals, and therefore, in the absence of repeated violations, no criminal case could have been registered. He submits that under the relevant rules, unless the vehicle, along with the mineral, is found indulging in such activity for the fourth consecutive time, registration of a criminal case is not warranted.

In support of his contention, counsel places reliance on Rule 102 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012, which is reproduced herein, for reference:-

“102. Consequences of violation – Wherever a carrier is found to be transporting any mineral, in whatever form, without a valid mineral transit pass as required under rule 98, and/ or a valid mineral transport permit as required under rule 99, he would be dealt with as under, (i) Where a carrier is found to be indulging in violation of the rules for the first time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited along with the impounding of the vehicle, which may be released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than Ten Thousand rupees;

(ii) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the second time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited along with the impounding of the vehicle for a minimum period of three days and released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees;

(iii) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the third time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited alongwith the impounding of the vehicle for a period of minimum ten days, and for relase shall entail payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall be twenty five thousand rupees;

(iv) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the fourth time or more, the officer concerned shall re