##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.26558 of 2026 -

106

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.26558 of 2026

Date of Decision: 11.05.2026

Harbhajan Singh @ Manni and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

*****

Present: Mr. A. S. Khosa, Advocate

for the petitioner.

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.40, dated

01.04.2026, under Sections 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District

Hoshiarpur. Further prayer has been made for granting ad-interim

protection to the petitioner by way of direction to the investigating

agency to join him investigation and for staying the arrest of the

petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present

case was got registered on the information received through telephone on

01.04.2026 regarding the illegal mining in the choe of village Bajrawar

RITTU

2026.05.13 10:16

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M No.26558 of 2026 -

and in case of raid, the accused could be apprehended. It was alleged that

on receiving the information, the raiding party was constituted and

reached the place as disclosed in the information. One tractor trolley of

blue colour model Sonalika having Chassis No.KYBDE 45875383 and

another tractor mark Swaraj bearing registration No.PB-08-EG-7793, on

which one bucket was hanging, were found there. One driver of the

tractor, namely, Rajiv Kumar was apprehended on the spot whereas the

another driver of the tractor, on seeing the police party, ran away from the

spot. Driver of the tractor, namely, Rajiv Kumar, who was apprehended

on the spot, disclosed the names of driver of another tractor to be Mani,

i.e. petitioner No.1 and owner of the tractor mark Swaraj to be Sanjiv

Kumar @ Baba, i.e. petitioner No.2. Thus, the request was made to take

legal action against them by Amninder Singh, JE-cum-Mining Incharge.

On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending

their arrest, the petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.

However, after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissed the bail

applications filed by both the petitioners vide separate orders dated

04.05.2026. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court

by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of anticipatory

bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present

RITTU

2026.05.13 10:16

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M No.26558 of 2026 -

case. He has submitted that the petitioners were not present at the spot,

however, they have been implicated in the present case, on the basis of

disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Rajiv Kumar, which is not

even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that no recovery has been

effected from the petitioners. He has submitted that petitioner No.2,

namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Baba is not the owner of the either tractor. He

has submitted that the recovery of tractor and trolley has already been

effected in the present case and nothing has been recovered from the

petitioners. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners

has relied upon the decision passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

‘Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others’,

2011(1) RCR (Criminal). He has submitted that except the disclosure

statement, there is no evidence against the petitioners. He has submitted

that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation. He has submitted

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case as

alleged against the