Sanawar Ahmed vs. State Of Haryana

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that nei- ther the petitioner has been named in the present FIR, nor the investigating agency is seized of any cogent inculpatory evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime. In fact, the petitioner is, neither directly nor indirectly, involved in the commission of alleged forgery or cheating. To substantiate this submission, he submits that although the plant in ques- tion was earlier registered in the name of petitioner’s son, however, much prior to commission of the alleged offence, it was transferred in the name of one Munnower Alvi. The petitioner’s son was proprietor of the firm, namely, Keshav Mineral Screening Plant and he had sold the same to Munnower Alvi. Moreover, Eklavya, who was owner of the land, on which the screening plant was installed, also entered into an agreement dated 01.08.2023 for giving the land on lease to Munnower Alvi for the period w.e.f. 01.08.2023 to 30.06.2024. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits DEVINDER YADAV 2024.05.28 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that, for various transactions for running the plant concerned, OTPs are required and on various portals like Kanta Portal etc., the mobile number of the pro- prietor is required, which in the instant case, was not in the name of the peti- tioner, rather was in the name of Munnower Alvi. Finally, he submits that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence(s) invoked in the present FIR under the Mining Act is 05 years, whereas, no offence whatso- ever under Sections 467 and 468 is made out against the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by the in- vestigating officer, vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, inter alia on the ground that, the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in nine other cases of illegal mining. He further submits that, Munnower Alvi, in whose favour the plant concerned is claimed to DEVINDER YADAV 2024.05.28 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

The learned State counsel has also placed on record a reply, on affidavit of Kanwaljeet Singh HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head- quarters, Yamuna Nagar. GIST OF THE REPLY

A perusal of the reply reveals that it embodies the hereinafter discussed complete details of investigation, besides embodying therein the role and criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

What emanates from a studied perusal of the reply is that, dur- ing investigation, the email ID and details of mobiles numbers of the ac- cused were obtained from the Cyber Cell, Yamuna Nagar. It was found that the accused company(ies) had not applied on the new ‘HMGIS’ portal and permits of the company(ies) were registered on the new ‘HMIGS’ portal by unknown person(s). Moreover, on checking the record of e-rawana/bills, it was found that aforesaid company(ies) had issued forged e-rawana/bills to five screening plaints in Yamuna Nagar, in respect of 70 thousand metric tonnes of mining material. The said five screening plants used to sell the mining material stocked with them, through illegal mining, by using the said forged e-rawana/bills, thereby making illegal material to be legal and making sale thereof to the transporters. Resultantly, Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were added in the present FIR.

On 10.04.2024, co-accused Sajid Ali was arrested in the present case and upon interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement and got re- DEVINDER YADAV 2024.05.28 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

As per the disclosure statement of co-accused Sajid Ali, co-ac- cused Deepak had received Rs.31.50 lakhs in District Yamuna Nagar at dif- ferent places and on different dates for storing fake stock with them. Co-ac- cused Deepak and Sajid Ali were found to be connected through whatsapp chats and whatsapp calls. Moreover, during investigation, it was also found that, OTPs were received on different dates on the mobile of co-accused Deepak from the Mining Department.

On 18.04.2024, co-accused Satya Parkash was arrested in the present case and upon interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement and got demarcated the places where he along with the petitioner had done illegal mining in the area of Bailgarh, P.S. Partap Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Na- DEVINDER YADAV 2024.05.28 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Thereafter, on 28.04.2024, co-accused Deepak was also ar- rested in the present case and upon interrogation, he also suffered his disclo- sure statement and got recovered his mobiles, Laptop make ‘Dell’ and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and also got demarcated the relevant places. On the basis of his disclosure statement, co-accused Anoop Kumar posted in the Mining Department, Headquarter, Panchkula was arrested in the present case and upon interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement and got re- covered his mobile, Laptop and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and also got demar- cated the relevant places.

Following this chain of events, the investigating agency, on 30.04.2024, arrested co-accused Naveen Soni and Raj Yadav, who was working in the I.T. Cell of Mining Department, Headquarter, Panchkula and upon interrogation, they suffered their respective disclosure statements and got recovered incriminating materials, including sums of money, which were received by them in pursuance of illegal mining. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER

The role of the petitioner, as surfaced during the course of in- vestigation, is recorded in the reply (supra), relevant portion whereof is ex- tracted hereunder:- “15….. the name of the petitioner was surfaced during investigation upon the disclosure statements of the accused Satya Parkash, Sajid Ali, Ravi Kumar @ Ramu and Deepak. As per the investigation, it was found that the petitioner was running a screening plant in the name of Keshav Mineral situated at Village Bailgarh, P.S. Partap DEVINDER YADAV 2024.05.28 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

As per the reply (supra), the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, he is involved in the hereinafter extracted nine cases of illegal mining:-

FIR No.213/2017, under Section 379 IPC and 21.1 of Mining Act, 3 PDPP ACT, Police Station Mirjapur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

FIR No.290/2017, under Section 379 IPC and 21.1 of Mining Act, 3 PDPP ACT, Police Station Mirjapur, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE INSTANT PETITION

The prima facie inference, as becomes generated from the here- inabove discussed material is that, the petitioner, who is a habitual offender, has along with his co-accused (already arrested) and some of the officials of the mining department, played a specific and categoric role in tampering with the new ‘HMIGS’ portal, which was created by the government to stop illegal mining, thereby rendering futile the efforts of the government to curb the menace of illegal mining. In fact, the petitioner and his co-accused found loopholes in the e-rawana system and took undue advantage thereof, thus causing huge loss to the exchequer.

For all the reasons (supra), especially taking into account the gravity of the offence committed, role played by the petitioner in commission of the offence and his criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.