Jaswinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 21(1) and 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, and the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on July 9, 2022, a Mining Inspector inspected the petitioner's BNW Screening Plant and found 11,415 cubic feet of processed material (Gatka, Bajri, and sand). Additionally, approximately 1,25,100 cubic feet of mining material extraction was observed about 2 acres away. The petitioner claimed the processed material was for his adjacent house construction and was purchased from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher, supported by receipts. He denied any connection to the excavation in the adjacent land, stating it did not belong to him. The State opposed the bail, arguing the material was stored unusually far from the construction site and the receipts appeared procured after the FIR registration. The State also highlighted the petitioner's history of involvement in 10 other cases.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court found the petitioner's explanation for storing the building material at his crusher, about one kilometer away from his construction site, to be unconvincing. It reasoned that incurring additional transportation costs would be illogical for a prudent person. The quantity of 'Gatka' found was also deemed excessive for the small-scale construction indicated by the photographs. While the prosecution could not directly link the petitioner to the excavation in the adjacent plot, the substantial quantity of processed material suggested illegal mining. The Court scrutinized the purchase bills from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher (Annexure P-2) and found them suspicious. The bills, issued serially from 459 to 468 between June 19 and June 23, 2022, indicated that M/s Vishal Stone Crusher sold material only to the petitioner during this period, which the Court considered highly improbable and indicative of procured documents. The Court also noted the petitioner's history of involvement in 10 other cases, including a conviction in one, as a factor against granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, no special case was made out for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the allegations of illegal mining and possession of processed mining material? The petitioner argued that the processed material found at his crusher was for his personal construction project and was duly purchased from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher, evidenced by receipts (Annexure P-2). He contended that he had no connection to the excavation in the adjacent land, as it was not his property. He also submitted photographs (Annexure P-1) showing ongoing construction at his house. The State contended that the petitioner's explanation for storing the construction material at his crusher, about a kilometer away from the construction site, was not plausible due to additional transportation costs. The State argued that the receipts from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher appeared to be procured after the FIR registration, lacking authenticity. Furthermore, the State pointed to the petitioner's prior involvement in multiple cases as a reason to deny anticipatory bail.