CRM-M-50949 of 2025 -1- S. No.104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-50949 of 2025 Date of Decision:11.09.2025 Sourabh Bansal alias Saurabh Bansal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. This is first petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.138 dated 14.08.2025 registered under Sections 115, 121(1), 126, 132, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana. 2. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint given to the Police by Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Panchkula with the allegations that on 06.06.2025, employees of their office complained that Shri Aman Singh, Mining Guard and Head Constable Kuldeep Singh were on duty and were checking the vehicles involved in illegal mining near Chandimandir traffic lights. One vehicle bearing No.HR37E-8869 was stopped near the toll plaza from Surajpur bypass and the driver could not produce any bill for transporting minerals in the vehicle which was filled with gravels. When they were taking the vehicle away in order to seize it, some people reached there in a car near Majri RENU 2025.09.15 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50949 of 2025 -2- Chowk and stopped them and they tried to get the vehicle released forcibly. The car was being driven by Sourabh Bansal- petitioner and he abused all of them and threatened to ruin their career and to trap them in false cases. Thereafter, vehicle was parked in the Police Station, Sector-20 Panchkula. He further alleged that this tipper was earlier seized on 19.03.2024, when it was involved in illegal transportation of minerals and FIR No.1234 of 2024 was registered. Thereafter, it was again caught on 07.11.2024 at Police Station Chandimandir, when it was being used in illegal mineral transportation and separate FIR was also registered for not depositing the fine and time and again, the owner of the vehicle is violating the directives of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, and Rule 102 of State Mining Rules, 2012 by indulging in transportation of minerals illegally and is threatening and abusing the government employees/ public servants and obstructing them in performing their duties. Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed. 3. Upon notice, the State Counsel has appeared and has opposed the bail. Both the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. His brother had lodged one FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act against some officials of Mining Department and he has thus been falsely implicated in order to take revenge. Most of the offences are bailable which are Magisterial trial. Petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he may be released on anticipatory bail. RENU 2025.09.15 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-50949 of 2025 -3- 3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and argued that the petitioner is time and again indulging in transportation of mines and minerals illegally in violation of the State Mining Rules as well as in violation of the orders of NGT. The vehicle was caught for the third time while transporting minerals illegally and thereafter, petitioner forcibly tried to get the vehicle released and intimidated the public servants and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. 4. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is indulging in illegal transportation of mining minerals in violation of orders of NGT as well as Rule 102 of State Mining Rules, 2012 time and again and when vehicle was seized, he tried to get it released forcibly and intimidated the public servants and deterred them in discharging their official duties. Petitioner thus appears to be a habitual offender and in view of gravity of offence, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge September 11, 2025 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.09.15 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh