[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Sikka @ Tiku Sikka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16930
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1535 of 2026
Hemant Sikka @ Tiku Sikka S/o Mannu Lal Sikka, Aged About 25 Years R/o
Near Shiv Mandir, Trimurty Nagar, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Devendra
Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI
KUMARI
Order on Board
KUMARI Date:
2026.04.15
10:35:41
+0530
13.04.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as
she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 230/2025, registered
at Police Station - Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act.
2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the police of Police Station
Devendra Nagar received secret information from an informant that, on
22.11.2025, an unknown person was transporting illegal contraband
ganja for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police
reached the spot and seized 4.864 kilograms of contraband ganja from
an open place at the scene of occurrence. Consequently, an offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act has been
registered against the present applicant.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish exclusive
possession in respect of the seizure, as the seizure memo has not been
duly proved through the seizure witnesses. It is also submitted that the
charge-sheet has been filed. Although the applicant has seven previous
criminal antecedents under the IPC and BNS, all such cases are pending,
and an explanation in that regard has been furnished through the covering
memo of the present bail application. The applicant has been in judicial
custody since 22.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a
considerable amount of time. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be
granted regular bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that a total quantity of alleged contraband
substance which has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant, is less than the commercial quantity. He further submits that the
charge-sheet has been field and the applicant has 07 previous criminal
antecedents under the IPC and BNS, hence, he is not entitled for grant of
bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and considering the quantity of the alleged contraband substance
recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is less than the
commercial quantity, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has been
filed and the explanation regarding the applicant's criminal antecedents
has been duly furnished through the covering memo, and further
considering that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
22.11.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the
present case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant -
Hemant Sikka @ Tiku Sikka involved in Crime No. 230/2025,
registered at Police Station - Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, be
released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect
that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and
pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against her under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of
the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion
of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or
without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against her in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti
