IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal ... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement … Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate and Ms. Diya Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Megna Malik, Advocate and Ms. Sushmita Srivastava, Advocate, for the respondent.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the release of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail in a case ECIR/CDZO-II/11/2022 dated 18.10.2022 under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PMLA’) filed by the Directorate of Enforcement/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ED’).

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is an entrepreneur, belonging to a respectful family and had no criminal antecedents. M/s Tirpuati Roadways, firm of the petitioner participated in an e-auction for obtaining mining contract of mineral mine, namely, Rattewali Block/PKL B-10 for extraction of boulder, gravel and sand having a tentative area of 45.00 hectares against the reserve price of Rs.8,18,00,000/- and had offered the bid of Rs.11,72,50,000/- per annum against the said reserve price. The LOI dated 16.6.2017 (Annexure P-1) was issued in favour of the firm of the petitioner by the Director, Mines & Geology, Haryana. The firm submitted an online proposal for grant of Terms of Reference (Annexure P-2) with the Ministry of Environment. Finally, on 30.07.2018, the “No Objection Certificate” (Annexure P-3) was granted to the firm of the petitioner by Senior Town Planner, Panchkula. Accordingly, a contract dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) was entered into between the firm of the petitionr and the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Haryana. Finally, the environmental clearance was also granted to the firm on 21.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) for a period of 07 years with specific and standard conditions. The Haryana State Pollution Control Board granted “Consent to Establish” to the firm of the petitioner as per norms fixed by the Board. Learned senior counsel further argued that after completion of the statutory requirements, the work of mining commenced w.e.f. 21.03.2020 in a lawful manner. He further contended that on 11.05.2022, a team of the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana carried out a surprise check at the mining site and allegedly got excavation of boulder, gravel and sand from the mining site measured in respect of volume by a team of HARSAC, Gurugram. As per the one sided report, it was reported that during the period from 05.05.2022 to 11.05.2022, a total number of 1886 trucks/dumpers were found to have been taken out the excavated material, whereas the bills mentioning GST and royality etc., were issued only for 518 trucks. Further, as per the report received from HARSAC, Gurugram, total volume extracted from the above said mine was 47.66 LTPA, whereas as per the specific conditions of environmental clearance letter issued to the firm of the petitioner, the permissible mining of river bed material was limited to only 8.39 LTPA from an effective mineable area of 24.25 hectare with a maximum mineable depth of 1.33 meters from the original ground level. Thus, it was alleged that the volume of material extracted by the owner of the firm M/s Tirupati Roadways, Rattewali, from the mine was six times more than the permissible limit in a year and a loss of Rs.35 crores of revenue had been caused to the Government of Haryana by the owner of the firm.

3. Learned senior counsel further vehemently argued that on the basis of such an arbitrary and one sided inquiry, which was prepared without even calling the petitioner or the firm, the Vig