IN BA 18 OF 2023- MEGH HC-Meghalaya High Court rejects bail to the Director of coke plant allegedly involved in illegal mining activity in West Khasi Hills District
Justice W. Diengdoh[20.07.2023]

Read Order:Pawan Bhama v. State of Meghalaya

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 24, 2023: The Meghalaya High Court dismissed thebail application of the Director of a coke plant who was allegedly involved in illegal mining activity in the state’s West Khasi Hills District.

A Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice W. Diengdohobserved that given the gravity of the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer (IO) should be given ample opportunity to complete his investigation.

The Bench relied uponSunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation  where Supreme Court  had held that an individual who perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company could be accused, along with the company if there was sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with a criminal intent and stated that,"At this point of time, only prima facie evidence is required to allow the I/O to take necessary steps, even to the point of arrest of the alleged offender and as such, it would be a matter of evidence at the trial to prove this aspect of the matter.”

In the matter at hand, the accused was arrested in an FIR lodged under Section 188 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 3(1)/21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957(MMDR Act) read with Section 15 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Environment Act), Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Explosive Substantive Act) and Section 53(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 2016 (Benami Act), after the IO was satisfied that accused had not fulfilled the conditions of notice under Section 41-A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The accused contended that he had cooperated with the IO when summoned under Section 41A CrPC and in any case, he was entitled to bail since all offences alleged against him were bailable. Further, the accused had also filed a cross FIR against certain individuals involved in the coke plant's operation. However, the application was vehemently opposed by the State counsel citing seriousness of offences and chance of evidence tampering.

At the outset, the Court pointed that the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, was punishable with life sentence or rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years. Hence, the Bench said not all offences alleged against accused were bailable.

The Bench further stated that it was too early in the day to come to any conclusion that there were cross cases related to the same subject matter involving the accused. “It would however depend on the investigation by the I/O to come to any findings or conclusion on this aspect but to say that such assertion is a ground for grant of bail cannot be fathom by this Court.”