Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-41411-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41411-2025
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 17.10.2025
Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S.Thind, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
063 26.03.2024 Dasuya, District 21/29 and 61 of NDPS Act, 1985
Hoshiarpur, Punjab
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 17 of the bail application and 1 (E) of the short reply, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Station 1 62 26.03.2024 - Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur 2 248 20.12.2023 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur 3 318 08.10.2023 336/188/120-B IPC and Tanda, 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act District Hoshiarpur 4 221 07.11.2023 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur 5 63 25.03.2025 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur 6 129 11.07.2023 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur 8 130 11.07.2023 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the short reply filed by the State. On 26-03-2024, the police arrested the petitioner in other case and during investigation, the petitioner disclosed qua factum of concealment of heroin in his house and the Police seized 260 grams of heroin and INR 60,000/- on the demarcation of petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS JYOTI SHARMA Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-41411-2025
4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
7. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply.
8. As per paragraph 1A of the short reply, the contraband is 260 grams of heroin.
9. Dealing in 260 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 260 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of 104.00% Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated Notification No. & date 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 56 JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-41411-2025 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Heroin Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine Small Quantity < 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985 821 (E) Sr. No. 2(xvi)(d) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic ****** Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses
(v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or Chemical Name one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin JYOTI SHARMA conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-41411-2025
11. It shall be relevant to refer to paragraphs B & C of the short reply, which read as follows:-
"B) The evidence based on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused:- That it is humbly submitted that on 26.03.2024 SI/SHO during the investigations in FIR No.62 dated 26.03.2024 under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 148, 149 of the IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, the petitioner Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa was arrested in Police lockup, who was taken out for the purpose of investigations. During the investigations, the petitioner Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa suffered disclosure statement that on 26.03.2024, he alongwith Sucha Singh (father), Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother) Taljinder Kaur that on 26.03.2024, the petitioner alongwith Sucha Singh (father), Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother) Taljinder Kaur (wife), Akashdeep Singh @ Akash and Santokh Nahar were present in their house. At the time of the raid conducted by the police party in his house, the members of his family armed with weapons had attacked on the police party and inflicted them injuries as well as Sucha Singh (father) also got injured and all the injured were taken to Hospital.
The accused alongwith Sucha Singh (father) Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother), Taljinder Kaur (wife) Akashdeep Singh @ Akash, Santokh Nahar, since long were carrying business of sale of heroin and their livelihood bank upon the sale proceeds of drugs and he had brought heroin meant for sale to the customers, which he had concealed in a pit dig out near a washbasin in the courtyard alongwith drug money. Therefore, on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by petitioner -Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa, FIR No.63 dated 26.03.2024 U/s 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act was registered at P.S. Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur against the petitioner, Sucha Singh (father), Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother), Taljinder Kaur (wife) Akashdeep Singh @ Akash and Santokh Nahar. During the investigation, the recovery of 260 grams of heroin alongwith drug money to the tune of Rs.60,000/-yielded on the demarcation of petitioner-Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa. the FSL. report of the present case was received in the present case and result of the same is as under:-
"The contents of the envelope under reference have been analyzed by chemical, TLC and instrumental analysis. On the basis of analysis, Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) has been found present in the content of the envelope". The true copy of FSL report is annexed as Annexure R-1.
C) The evidence against the petitioner:- That it is submitted that during the investigation, the recovery of 260 grams of heroin alongwith drug money to the tune of Rs.60,000/- yielded on the demarcation of petitioner-Prabhdeep Singh @ Billa. and the co-
accused Sucha Singh (father), Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother), Taljinder Kaur (wife) Akashdeep Singh @ Akash and Santokh Nahar were arrested in the present case on 27.03.2024. After the completion of investigation, the challan of the present case was presented in the Ld. Trial Court at Hoshiarpur against the petitioner, co-accused Sucha Singh (father), Satnam Singh (brother), Jasvir Kaur (mother), Taljinder Kaur (wife) Akashdeep Singh @ Akash and Santokh Nahar on 09.09.2024. The charges were framed on 12.11.2024. Now the case is pending in the court of Sh. Amit Kumar Garg Ld. JMIC, Hoshiarpur for 16.09.2025 for prosecution JYOTI SHARMA evidence."
2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-41411-2025
12. Per the custody certificate dated 30.09.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year and 06 months.
13. So far the petitioner would have made out a case for bail. However, the biggest consideration before this Court is the petitioner's massive criminal antecedents.
14. In State of West Bengal v. Respondent, MANU/SC/0854/2022 [2022 INSC 691], Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [18]. The other segment of the relevant aspects of this case pertains to the conduct of the Respondent. In this regard, a few noticeable facts and factors against him could be summarised thus: he has been involved in as many as 53 criminal cases and had been convicted in two of them; there had been several allegations against him of threatening the Investigating Officers and public servants from time to time; even in the present case too, he had allegedly threatened and misbehaved with the police officers and has been charge-sheeted for offences Under Sections 353 and 506 Indian Penal Code; and on 23.02.2021, he did not appear before the Investigating Officer even after dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court and was arrested at a faraway place. These facts and factors, prima facie, give rise to the question as to whether the Respondent was entitled to be granted the indulgence of bail. The High Court has taken the view that, prima facie, the Respondent might not have committed the offence he has been charged with in this case; and, looking to his past history, there was nothing on record to suggest that he was likely to commit an offence under the NDPS Act while on bail. The High Court has, in the totality of circumstances, taken the view that the Respondent was entitled for bail on stringent conditions and has imposed additional conditions as noticed hereinbefore.
[18.1]. Although, the past history of the Respondent and even his conduct in relation to the processes concerning the present case give rise to a few questions but, the strong countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie indication that he is being sought to be framed by concoctions and baseless stories. Another factor noticeable is that the Respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past. Interestingly, it is noticed from the material placed on record that nothing of any contraband Article has been recovered from the Respondent or from any place under his exclusive control. This factor further adds on to the doubt as to whether the Respondent had at all been indulgent in narcotics or any contraband? That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter. Moreover, it cannot be said that the Respondent was consciously seeking to abscond on 23.02.2021 merely because he was found in the night at Purba Bardhaman and not at Kolkata. In any case, the aspect relating to tendency to flee has been duly taken care of with the conditions as imposed by the High Court. The other submissions with reference to the decision in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) hardly make out a case for interference particularly looking to the nature of evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution against the Respondent. In this regard, we would hasten to observe that apart from the stringent conditions JYOTI SHARMA already imposed by the High Court, it is always open for the 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-41411-2025 prosecution to seek imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondent, in case of any fault on his part in due adherence to the conditions already imposed.
[19]. In view of the above, we find no reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the Respondent with specific conditions.
15. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
16. In Jogindro Bai v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51218-2024, decided on 29.11.2024, Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:162096, this Court observed, [17]. Adjudicating a bail petition of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exacting responsibility on courts to exercise judicial discretion in a manner that is both reasoned balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law. As a natural corollary, consideration of an accused's criminal history should be limited to cases where convictions have been secured, including those resulting in suspended sentences, and all pending First Information Reports (FIRs) in which the petitioner is formally arraigned as an accused. However, cases that culminated in acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawals of prosecution, or the filing of closure reports by the investigative authorities must be excluded.
[18]. Although the legal system upholds the principle that crime, not the individual, should be condemned, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles, and a recidivist often operates on precarious ground, where the weight of a significant criminal record creates an increasingly challenging terrain. Nonetheless, where the offense for which bail is sought is minor, such that arrest is generally unwarranted, or bail would ordinarily be inevitable, courts must not deny bail solely as a punitive measure intended to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Such an approach contravenes the judiciary's obligation to uphold the foundational principles of justice and equity in bail proceedings. Another reason that dis-entitles for bail is the criminal antecedents. Considering the bail petition of an accused with a criminal history throws an onerous responsibility upon the courts to act judiciously and reasonably because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-41411-2025 prosecution resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecution stands withdrawn, or the prosecution filed a closure report, cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not criminal, for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will likely re-indulge in the crime.
17. In the light of the above, the petitioner's massive criminal history disentitles him from bail at this stage.
18. The petitioner's arguments did not point toward any material contradictions.
19. The submissions made above and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation reveals sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime; thus, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the petitioner, the State, or the other accused.
20. In Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, decided on 21 Oct 2022, 2022-SCC- OnLine-SC-2109, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [4]. According to the prosecution, contraband material weighing about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain. During the course of investigation, it was found that the motor vehicle was recorded in the name of Md. Nizam Uddin who had executed a sale letter and handed over the custody of the vehicle to accused Md. Abdul Hai and that accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed by accused Md. Abdul Hai and that contraband material in question was to be handed over to accused-Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop.
[5]. The High Court by its order which is presently under challenge, directed release of both the accused as stated above on bail after they had undergone custody to the tune of about a year. Questioning grant of relief to said accused, the instant appeals have been preferred.
[7]. What emerges from the record is that large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain. Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused is a question.
[8]. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu . In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta , the rigour of law JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-41411-2025 lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail.
[9]. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith.
[10]. We have been given to understand that the charge-sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, we direct the Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.
21. In Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha, decided on 10 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl.) 8198- 2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioners are in custody since 28th May, 2022 for alleged commission of alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the FIR allegation, 125.3 kg. of "Ganja" was recovered from the petitioners.
[3]. It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and that three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third prosecution witness was examined as far back as on 28th January, 2024 and since then, no other prosecution witness has been examined. There is, however, no such averment in the petition.
[5]. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that every endeavor shall be made on behalf of the prosecution to have all the witnesses examined by the end of this year.
[6]. The trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial and give its decision as early as possible, in accordance with law.
[7]. We, however, do not see any reason to interfere the impugned judgment and order at this stage; however, it is clarified that in the event the trial is not completed by the end of this year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the trial court.
22. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
23. The petitioner's custody of around 1½ year cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense and petitioner's criminal history.
24. Regarding the delay in the trial, if the trial does not conclude within two years of JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 the petitioner's custody, and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 8 CRM-M-41411-2025 may apply for bail before the trial Court. The Court shall not be influenced by the dismissal of bail on merits or by criminal history and shall decide it on changed circumstances and the prolonged trial.
25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
26. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 17.10.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. JYOTI SHARMA 2025.10.17 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 9