IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212)

Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Raj Kumar …... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. V.P.S. Mithewal, Advocate, with Mr. H.V. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.24 dated 22.02.2025 under Sections 21(1), 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “1957 Act”) registered at Police Station Nangal, Distt. Roopnagar, Punjab.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Anuj Tomar, Inspector Mining-cum-JE Nangal and reads as under:-

To The Station House Officer Nangal Subject Regarding initiating proceedings against M/S Ganga Stone Crusher, village Khera Kalmet, for illegal mining under U/S 21(1).4(1) MMR 1957 In connection with the above subject, today on 22.02.2025, the undersigned checked MS Ganga stone crusher, village Khera Kalmot. During the checking, illegal mining activity was found on the crusher. Fresh traces of movement of tippers were found from the spot. In this, a total of 6 tippers were found parked on the crusher, whose registrations are (PB 11 BU9721, PB 11 BU 7121, PB11BF 6621, PB 11CB 6921. PB 11 BU 9521, and PB02EC7336). It is worth mentioning that the registration of the crusher is cancelled. In view of the above situation, it is informed that illegal mining activity was found by the crusher. In this regard, further action should be initiated against the crusher under MMR 1957 U/S 21 (1), 4(1). SD/-

Anuj Tomar. Inspector Mining cum JE Nangal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant FIR is not maintainable as the offence under the Act is non-cognizable. Be that as it may, taking the allegations to be correct, no case for custodial interrogation is made out as no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a reply fated 27.08.2025 which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender being an accused in four other cases of a similar nature. Further, the offences are cognizable as per Section 21 of the Act. He, thus, prays that the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceedings further, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation)

Act, 1957 and they are reproduced as under:-

4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under license or lease. -

(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mineral concession or of a or of a exploration licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting license or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:

[Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, ] [ Inserted by Act 37 of 1986, Section 2 (w.e.f. 10.2.1987).][the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] [ Substituted by Act 38 of 1999, Section 5, for " the Atomic Minerals Division" (w.e.f. 18.12.1999).][of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology o