✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 17 Apr 2012

Criminal Appeal No. 16422 of 2012 · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Criminal Appeal No. 16422 of 2012RAM CHAND GUPTA3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
17 Apr 2012
Bench
RAM CHAND GUPTA

Outcome

Allowed

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions

Judgment

Operative part

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.16422 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-7813 o f 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.156, dated 22.7.2011, under Sections 379, 188, 120-B, 307 IPC and under Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that they being owner and driver of a dumper bearing registration No.HR 28 J 0581 along with another dumper bearing registration No.HR 55E 6697 being Crl.M.No.M-7813 of 2012(O&M) -2- driven by co-accused were indulging in the act of illegal mining in violation of order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

There was secret information with the police in this regard. The present FIR was lodged on the basis of secret information and raid was conducted. Petitioners-accused were apprehended while indulging in an act of transporting stones extracted by illegal mining. However, they attacked the police party and succeeded in running away along with dumpers and the police persons could save themselves by jumping in the ditches. There are allegations that police officials could not chase them as they were not having any vehicle at that time. Names of petitioners have been mentioned in the FIR. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners -accused that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that rather they along with dumper surrendered in the same police station on 23.7.2011, i.e., one day after this alleged occurrence in earlier FIR No.165 dated 26.7.2010 regarding alleged illegal mining registered against them and that dumper was also surrendered by them with the police on 23.7.2011.

It is further contended that they were taken in custody in the said case and later on released on bail in that case and that dumper was also released on superdari. It is further contended that however, in that case police remand of petitioners in this case was not sought. Hence, it is contended that they have been falsely involved in this case. However, there are serious allegations against petitioners- accused. As per prosecution version, they were absconding in FIR No.165 dated 26.7.2010 along with the dumper and indulging in the act of illegal mining. Another FIR, i.e., the present one, was registered against them on Crl.M.No.M-7813 of 2012(O&M) -3- the basis of secret information that they were still indulging in the act of illegal mining. The said dumper along with the petitioners were apprehended and, however, they succeeded in running away by attacking the police party. Merely on the ground that they surrendered before the police on the next date, i.e., 23.7.2011 in the earlier FIR along with dumper and did not surrender in this FIR, it cannot be said that they have become entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Juber and Daud for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

17.4.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Environment Protection Act, 1986 — s. 15.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Apr 2012. The bench was RAM CHAND GUPTA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 16422 of 2012). ← Search more judgments