Crl.M.No.M-23884 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-23884 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 29, 2010 Umar Mohammad .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.Nos.51495-96 of 2010 Applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P5 is taken on record. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.42488 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-23884 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.508, dated 30.12.2009, under Sections 188, 420 IPC and 15 of Environment Protection Act, registered at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he is owner of M/s.Gorwall Stone Crusher, Indri Rewason Zone, Mewat. The said unit was closed and sealed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board as it failed to provide necessary pollution control measures and Crl.M.No.M-23884 of 2010 (O&M) -2- grossly violated the provisions of Air Act, 1981. However, on surprise checking by the officials of the Board on 10.7.2009, it was found that the unit was being run by breaking open the seals affixed on the plant and machinery. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in another FIR, anticipatory bail application was filed by owner of the said unit and in that FIR, concession of anticipatory bail was granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The fact that the petitioner-accused is owner of M/s.Gorwall Stone Crusher is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the unit was closed and sealed by the Board, vide order dated 20.11.2006. There are allegations that on surprise checking, the unit was found working by breaking the seals affixed on the plant and machinery and hence, in this way the petitioner-accused has taken the law in his own hands. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Umar Mohammad for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 29.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge