Facts of the Case

This is not a GST case. The petitioner sought pre-arrest/anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR registered under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

During a joint inspection by the mining department and police, approximately 4,000 cubic feet of river sand and 2,500 cubic feet of crusher gravel were found stored at a dump operating under the name 'Sehaj Thiara Building Material'. The petitioner was not present at the spot, but his name surfaced during inquiry with co-villagers as the operator of the dump. No registration for this dump had been obtained from the mining department.

The petitioner contended he was a bona fide businessman dealing in building materials under this trade name, duly registered under the GST Act — this GST registration was cited only to demonstrate his general legitimacy as a businessman, not as evidence that he was authorised to deal in minor minerals.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of running an unauthorised mineral dump without mining department registration.
  2. Whether his GST registration for the building-materials business was relevant to, or a defence against, the specific charge of unauthorised mineral storage/trade.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • He was falsely implicated based only on hearsay statements of co-villagers, was not present at the spot during inspection, and no recovery was effected from his conscious possession.
  • He was a bona fide businessman in building materials, duly registered under the GST Act, with deep roots in society and no likelihood of absconding.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner was directly involved in running an unauthorised dump of minor minerals on a commercial scale without the mandatory permission required under the Mines and Minerals Act.
  • His GST registration for a building-materials business did not authorise him to store or trade in minor minerals without a valid licence/permit from the mining department.
  • Custodial interrogation was necessary since the investigation was at a nascent stage, and several aspects — including the source of the minerals and the extent of the illegal operation — remained to be unearthed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the nature and quantity of material recovered indicated an organised activity requiring investigation into the legality of procurement, storage and sale, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for a fair and thorough investigation.
  • Rejecting the argument that the case was purely documentary in nature, the Court found the investigating agency still needed to verify multiple aspects of the alleged offence, and that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage could impede the investigation.
  • The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the Court clarifying that nothing in the order should be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.

Important Clarification

This order expressly holds that a GST registration for one line of business does not extend to authorise dealing in a different, separately regulated commodity (minor minerals) without the specific permit required under the Mines and Minerals Act. Beyond that point, the order does not decide any GST-law question — the case is governed entirely by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the BNSS bail framework.

Sections Involved

  • Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
  • Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the State — the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed, with custodial interrogation held necessary; no GST-law question was decided beyond the incidental observation on scope of GST registration.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Case No.: CRM-M-9577-2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Date of Order: 21.04.2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.