The Punjab and Haryana High Court has chosen not to decide on whether grounds of arrest must be supplied before arrest, noting that the Supreme Court is currently reconsidering the applicability of its own earlier ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
"When the Apex Court itself has doubted the verdict of Arnesh Kumar, it is appropriate to wait for its final word before applying it," stated Chief Justice Sheel Nagu.
This observation was made during a hearing on a petition filed by Gurdial Singh Kachure seeking anticipatory bail. He is accused under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in connection with illegal mining in the Satluj river. The prosecution alleged that a JCB machine involved in illegal sand mining was traced back to the petitioner, though the driver fled the scene.
The petitioner’s lawyer submitted a Gram Panchayat resolution, claiming the petitioner was legally contracted to fill mud in a village water tank. He denied the machine was extracting sand and emphasized that it was only present for authorized earthwork. Additionally, the counsel argued that under Section 41-A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS-2023), the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to the petitioner.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban on 'Thug Life', Orders State to Act on Threats
However, the court found that since the petitioner had not been arrested yet and merely apprehended arrest, the requirement to furnish arrest grounds had not arisen.
"Grounds of arrest are to be communicated at the time of arrest. Since the petitioner is not arrested, the claim does not apply," said the court.
Read Also:- SC Quashes Madras HC Arrest Order Against Tamil Nadu ADGP; Probe Now Handed Over to CB-CID
The court also pointed out that the resolution submitted by the petitioner was dated the same day as the alleged incident, raising suspicion about its authenticity.
"Possibility of the Gram Panchayat resolution being manufactured cannot be ruled out," observed the Chief Justice.
In its conclusion, the court emphasized the seriousness of environmental damage caused by illegal river mining and refused to interfere in the case.
"Illegal mining in rivers must be dealt with seriously despite lesser punishment prescribed under the law," the court remarked.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail plea was dismissed.
Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Title: Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of Punjab
