Allowed

Lucky Dhawan v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2021CRM-M/8554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused of supplying drones used in noiseaking smuggling, obtained regular bail for the offences under Arms and Aircraft Acts, noting he was already incarcerated and offences carried two years maximum.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Lucky Dhawan Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-8554-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 2.3.2021

¶3

Lucky Dhawan … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶8

Present:Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Rachhpal Singh.

¶10

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶11

¶12

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No. 202, dated 14.12.2020, Police Station Gharinda District Amritsar, under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 21 and 23 of NDPS Act, Section 10, 11, 12 of Aircraft Act.

¶14

As per the case of prosecution, the police received a secret information on 14.12.2020 to the effect that Bachittar Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Gurpinder Singh in connivance with some unknown persons had constituted a gang and indulged in smuggling of ‘Heroin’ and arms and ammunition from Pakistan across the international border through drones and supply the same in India. The information was further to the effect that on the said date Bachittar Singh and Lakhbir

¶15

MOHAN SINGH 2021.03.02 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

- 2 - CRM-M-8554-2021 (O&M)

¶17

Singh were proceeding in a white coloured Scorpio car bearing registration No. HR-35M-3709 for supplying the arms and ammunition smuggled from Pakistan to their customers. Pursuant to receipt of said information barricading was held and the vehicle in question was intercepted and Bachittar Singh and Lakhbir Singh were apprehended. It is the case of prosecution that 50 grams of ‘Opium’ was recovered from Bachittar Singh and 10 grams of ‘Heroin’ was recovered from Lakhbir Singh apart from arms and ammunition. It is further the case of prosecution that during the course of interrogation the aforesaid two accused disclosed that the drones which have been used for smuggling the contraband and arms etc. had been procured through the petitioner and Baldev Singh.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case and that it is in fact a case where the son of the petitioner is running a company by the name of Trd Enterprises which manufactures exports and supplies toy Helicopters, flying dolls, car toys, remote control cars, drone camera, video games etc. and that their products are also being supplied through platforms like Flipkart and Amazon. It has been submitted that while Trd Enterprises is being managed by his son Ayush Dhawan whose name also finds mentioned in the profile Annexure P-3, the petitioner who is handicapped to the extent of 50% as would be evident from the medical certificate (Annexure P-7), also sits in the office in the absence of his son.

¶19

MOHAN SINGH 2021.03.02 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

- 3 - CRM-M-8554-2021 (O&M)

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner was approached by one Arshdeep, Gurpinder and a lady who were interested in purchasing drones and who represented that they were running a college and they needed the drones for educating their students. It has been submitted that since the aforesaid persons wanted drones of a particular specification, the drones were procured through one Baldev Singh for an amount of `4,65,000/- and were supplied to Arshdeep Singh and while effecting the said transaction, the petitioner had retained the Aadhar Card of Arshdeep Singh and also his car registration number for the sake of record. It has thus been submitted that the petitioner cannot be associated with the alleged activities of smuggling which have been carried out by the other accused and that the drones if any had been supplied during the course of his business transactions without there being any intention for their misuse.

¶22

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the drones in question were used for nefarious activities including smuggling of drugs and arms from across the border, the petitioner does not deserve any concession of bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that since the co-accused who were apprehended at the spot namely Bachittar Singh and Lakhbir Singh in their disclosure statements have specifically nominated the petitioner as well as Baldev Singh to be the persons who had supplied the drones, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶23

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶24

MOHAN SINGH 2021.03.02 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

- 4 - CRM-M-8554-2021 (O&M)

¶26

It is a case where some contraband is stated to have been recovered from 2 accused namely Bachittar Singh and Lakhbir Singh who during the course of interrogation disclosed that the same had been smuggled from across the border from Pakistan with the help of drones supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner has prima facie been able to show that he and his son is running Trd Enterprises which is into the business of manufacturing, exporting and supplying of toys like toy Helicopters, flying dolls, car toys, remote control cars, drone camera, video games etc. Even if it is presumed that it is the petitioner who had supplied the drones through somebody else still the fact that he was aware about the misuse of the drone is a question which would be debatable. The petitioner is a person stated to be handicapped to the extent of 50% and is not stated to be involved in any other case and is behind bars since the last about 2 months. The offences under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act in any case are punishable for a maximum period of 2 years only. In these circumstances further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶27

March 2	, 2021	(GURVIN	DER SINGH GILL)
mohan			JUDGE
	Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes / No
	Whether Reportable	Yes / No

¶28

MOHAN SINGH 2021.03.02 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lucky Dhawan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky Dhawan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahant Baldev Dass Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Kamalpreet @ Nicka Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Vs State of Punjab

Rajender Singh @ Lovepreet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab