Introduction

In Gurdial Singh Kachure v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-32359 of 2025), decided on 13 June 2025, the Punjab & Haryana High Court (per Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice) dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail arising out of an FIR relating to alleged illegal riverbed mining. The case engages two intersecting strands of contemporary criminal procedure: (i) the scope of protection against arrest under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — BNSS) as understood through the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273; and (ii) the growing judicial emphasis on environmental harms, particularly illegal mining in rivers, as a factor in bail adjudication.

The petitioner apprehended arrest in FIR No. 101 dated 19 May 2025, Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural), for offences under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). The prosecution alleged a JCB machine engaged in illegal mining in the Satluj river was intercepted; its driver fled and the machine was registered to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the JCB was present for a Gram Panchayat-sanctioned earthwork (filling mud at the village water tank) per a resolution dated 18 May 2025, and further relied on Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS, arguing non-communication of arrest reasons.

The order is significant for two reasons. First, it expressly declines to apply Arnesh Kumar guidelines in view of an ongoing Supreme Court reconsideration signalled in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 17132 of 2024 (heard and reserved). Second, it articulates that illegal river mining must be treated with heightened seriousness at the bail stage despite the relatively lower punishment prescribed under the MMDR Act.

Summary of the Judgment

• Anticipatory bail was refused to the petitioner accused of illegal mining under BNS Section 303(2) and MMDR Act Section 21.
• The Court held that the obligation to communicate grounds and reasons for arrest arises “at the time of arrest.” Since the petitioner had not yet been arrested, the Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS argument was premature.
• On the petitioner’s reliance on Arnesh Kumar (which limits automatic arrests in offences punishable up to seven years and stresses the issuance of notice under Section 41-A), the Court noted that the Supreme Court has “doubted” its application to “the practicalities of life” in Mihir Rajesh Shah and has reserved orders; hence, it considered it appropriate to await the Supreme Court’s verdict rather than apply Arnesh Kumar.
• Disputed factual issues—such as whether the JCB was engaged in mining or present to commence Panchayat-allotted earthwork—were held to be matters for trial, not for determination at the anticipatory bail stage.
• The Court expressed serious doubt as to the authenticity of the Gram Panchayat resolution (same date as the incident), without adjudicating the merits, and emphasized that illegal river mining causes serious environmental harm warranting a strict approach despite lower statutory punishments.
• Result: Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The order discusses two Supreme Court decisions central to arrest jurisprudence and anticipatory bail strategy:

• Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273: This landmark ruling sought to curb unnecessary arrests for offences punishable up to seven years. It directed police to apply their mind to the necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC and, where appropriate, issue a notice of appearance under Section 41-A instead of arresting. Courts were also directed to scrutinize police compliance. Petitioners commonly invoke Arnesh Kumar to argue for protection against arrest or to question non-compliance with Section 41-A.
• Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 17132 of 2024 (heard and reserved): The High Court notes that the Supreme Court has “doubted” the application of Arnesh Kumar to the “practicalities of life” and has reserved orders. Without venturing into the merits (as the judgment is awaited), the High Court treats this as a reason for caution in applying Arnesh Kumar in the interim.

The High Court’s choice to refrain from applying Arnesh Kumar—pending the Supreme Court’s forthcoming pronouncement—shapes the outcome. While the Court’s core rejection of the 41-A/Section 35 argument on the distinct ground of “no arrest yet” would, by itself, undercut the petitioner’s reliance on Arnesh, the explicit statement to “await the verdict” signals a broader, interim judicial posture on arrests in such cases.

Legal Reasoning

• Stage-specific rights under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35 BNSS: The Court clarifies that the duty to communicate grounds and reasons for arrest attaches at the moment of arrest. Because the petitioner only apprehended arrest and had not been arrested, a complaint that the police failed to communicate reasons was premature. This stage-based reading avoids converting 41-A/Section 35 into a blanket anticipatory shield absent an actual arrest or a defective 41-A notice.
• Arnesh Kumar’s interim status in this Court: Given the Supreme Court’s expressed doubts in Mihir Rajesh Shah (orders reserved), the High Court considers it prudent not to apply Arnesh Kumar pending clarity. This produces a conservative interim approach: unless and until the Supreme Court reaffirms or retools Arnesh, its application may not be assumed in anticipatory bail hearings before this Court.
• Disputed facts are for trial: Whether the JCB was extracting sand or merely present for Panchayat-approved earthwork is a classic disputed factual matter. The Court reiterates that such controversies are not ordinarily adjudicated at the anticipatory bail stage. Supporting documents (like the Gram Panchayat resolution) may be scrutinized at trial.
• Scrutiny of Panchayat documentation: The Court “casts serious doubt” on the Panchayat resolution’s authenticity because its date coincides with the incident date. While leaving merits untouched, the Court underscores that documents produced to explain away conduct must be inherently credible and pre-existing; suspicious timing invites caution.
• Environmental gravity over quantum of punishment: The order explicitly recognizes the extensive environmental damage caused by illegal riverbed mining and declares that such offences “need to be taken in all seriousness” even though the MMDR Act prescribes relatively lower punishment. This foregrounds the environmental externalities (degradation of river ecology, bank erosion, biodiversity loss) as weighty factors in bail decisions.
• Ownership link supporting prima facie nexus: The intercepted JCB is registered in the petitioner’s name, and the driver allegedly fled. At the anticipatory bail stage, this ownership-cum-flight narrative provides a basic factual link justifying custodial investigation or at least refusal of anticipatory protection, absent compelling contrary material.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

• Arrests and anticipatory bail strategy: Until the Supreme Court clarifies Arnesh Kumar in Mihir Rajesh Shah, litigants may find it harder to rely on Arnesh as a near-automatic shield against arrest in sub-seven-year offences in this High Court. Defense strategies will likely pivot to fact-centric cooperation, absence of antecedents, strong roots in the community, and prompt production of credible, pre-existing documents.
• Environmental offences treated more sternly: The Court’s explicit elevation of environmental harm as a bail factor could influence other benches and trial courts to adopt a stricter stance in illegal mining cases, including riverbed extraction, even where statutory punishments appear lenient. Expect closer scrutiny of machinery ownership, procurement chains, and field-level permissions.
• Scrutiny of local body “authorizations”: Where accused persons rely on Gram Panchayat documents to justify excavation or movement of earth, courts are likely to assess timing and genuineness rigorously. As a matter of background law under the MMDR framework, mining permissions typically originate from State authorities under delegated rules; local-body contracts for civil works do not, by themselves, authorize extraction from riverbeds. This judgment’s skepticism will likely encourage more rigorous verification.
• Police practice on Section 41-A/Section 35 BNSS: Investigating agencies may treat this order as support for cautious but firm arrest decisions in illegal mining cases, so long as statutory thresholds are met and stage-specific obligations (like communication of grounds at arrest) are honoured. Paperwork and compliance will remain crucial to withstand judicial scrutiny.
• Doctrinal note on precedent hierarchy: The High Court’s decision to “await” the Supreme Court’s verdict, rather than apply Arnesh Kumar, may prompt debate. Under Article 141, Supreme Court law ordinarily binds unless overruled or stayed. However, when the Supreme Court publicly doubts a precedent and reserves judgment on its reconsideration, some High Courts adopt a restrained, interim approach. This order exemplifies that cautious posture; clarity will depend on the Supreme Court’s forthcoming pronouncement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Anticipatory bail: A pre-arrest bail mechanism (earlier Section 438 CrPC; corresponding provision under BNSS 2023) by which a person apprehending arrest seeks a direction that in the event of such arrest, they be released on bail. It does not decide guilt; it assesses whether custodial arrest is necessary at the pre-trial stage.
• Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35 BNSS: A statutory device allowing police to issue a notice of appearance to an accused instead of arresting them, when arrest is not necessary under Section 41 criteria. The right to be informed of the grounds arises at arrest. Non-compliance can be a ground for judicial intervention, but is context and stage-sensitive.
• Arnesh Kumar guidelines: The Supreme Court directed that arrests in offences punishable up to seven years must not be automatic; police should justify necessity per Section 41 and prefer notice under Section 41-A where appropriate. Courts must check compliance. The present order notes that Arnesh’s application is under reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
• MMDR Act, 1957 – Section 21: Prescribes penalties for contravention of the Act and mining rules. Despite relatively lower punishment compared to some general penal offences, courts may treat illegal mining—especially from rivers—as gravely harmful to the environment and local communities.
• Illegal riverbed mining: Extraction of sand and other minerals from riverbeds without lawful permission. It destabilizes river ecology, alters flow patterns, accelerates erosion, and harms biodiversity. Courts increasingly consider these harms in bail and sentencing.
• Disputed facts at bail stage: Bail courts refrain from deciding contested factual questions (e.g., whether a machine was engaged in mining or lawful civil work). Such questions are reserved for trial where evidence can be led and tested.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order in Gurdial Singh Kachure crystallizes two important tendencies in contemporary criminal process. First, it adopts an interim posture of restraint in invoking Arnesh Kumar protections while the Supreme Court re-examines their practical application in Mihir Rajesh Shah. Second, it foregrounds environmental harms, particularly illegal river mining, as a decisive factor militating against anticipatory bail, notwithstanding lower statutory punishments under the MMDR Act. The Court also reaffirms standard bail principles: stage-specific procedural rights (communication of arrest grounds at the time of arrest), non-resolution of disputed facts at the anticipatory bail stage, and skepticism toward documents of doubtful provenance produced to sanitize otherwise incriminating circumstances.

Going forward, unless and until the Supreme Court delivers clarifying guidance on Arnesh Kumar, accused persons in illegal mining prosecutions in this jurisdiction should expect stricter scrutiny and will need to rely on robust, pre-existing, and independently verifiable material to establish bona fides. Investigating agencies, in turn, must couple firm action with diligent compliance with BNSS/CrPC safeguards. The enduring takeaway is the Court’s emphatic message: environmental degradation, especially of river ecosystems, is a matter of serious public concern that will meaningfully influence bail discretion.