Illegal mining offences grave despite low punishment: High Court

Illegal mining in rivers must be treated with utmost seriousness as humanity has already suffered “enough environmental damage”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held while refusing anticipatory bail to the owner of a JCB machine indulging allegedly in illegal mining in the Satluj river before it was intercepted by the police.

Referring to the gravity of riverbed mining, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu asserted, “Humanity has suffered enough environmental damage especially to the river as well as to the environment at large; the offence of illegal mining in rivers needs to be taken in all seriousness despite less punishment prescribed under the Act. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the matter.

The assertions by Chief Justice Nagu came while considering the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

Dealing with the petitioner’s contention that he had not been supplied with the grounds of arrest under Section 41-A of the CrPC now Section 35 BNSS, Chief Justice Nagu clarified that the obligation to communicate grounds arises only “at the time of arrest” and could not be invoked merely on apprehension of arrest. “In the present petition, the petitioner merely apprehends arrest and has not yet been arrested,” the Bench held, rejecting the argument.

The High Court also expressed serious doubts over the genuineness of a Gram Panchayat resolution, produced by the petitioner to justify the presence of the JCB at the spot, noting that its date coincided with the incident.

The petitioner’s contention was he had been given contract for “filling mud” at the village water tank. “This court casts serious doubt about the authenticity and genuineness of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat since the date of the said resolution is the same as the date of incident and the possibility of the said document being manufactured cannot be ruled out,” Chief Justice Nagu asserted.

Before parting with the case, Chief Justice Nagu asserted the disputed question of fact raised by the petitioner’s counsel about the availability/non-availability of JCB machine at the relevant spot was matter of evidence” which is the domain of the trial Court and not of this Court while considering the prayer for bail.”

Punjab