Bail Can't Be Cancelled Merely For Non-Apperance In Police Station When Chargesheet Is Filed & Accused Attending Trial : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that bail cannot be revoked merely because an accused failed to report to a police station at periodic intervals, particularly once the investigation has concluded and trial has commenced. The judgment came in an appeal filed by Sheikh Irshad @ Monu, whose bail had been cancelled by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, on the State's plea. A Bench comprising...
The Supreme Court has held that bail cannot be revoked merely because an accused failed to report to a police station at periodic intervals, particularly once the investigation has concluded and trial has commenced.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by Sheikh Irshad @ Monu, whose bail had been cancelled by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, on the State's plea.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal, restored the earlier bail order, and observed that the High Court's approach in cancelling bail based solely on non-compliance with the reporting condition was not legally sustainable.
Background of the Case
Irshad was named as an accused in a 2020 FIR registered at Gittikhadan Police Station in Nagpur for offences under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The case involved the seizure of 2 kg 728 g of ganja, classified as an intermediate, non-commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The accused had spent nearly one year and eleven months in custody before the High Court granted him bail in August 2022.
A key condition of the bail order was that the accused must appear before the local police station on the 1st and 16th of every month. In 2023, the State moved an application before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that Irshad had violated this condition. The High Court accepted the State's contention and cancelled the bail on October 9, 2025.
Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that after grant of bail, the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet filed, and the case committed to the Sessions Court, where the trial is currently pending. It also recorded that the accused has been regularly appearing before the trial court as required.
"From record, we find that after filing chargesheet and on committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, it is pending for trial. As per the orders of the Trial Court, the appellant is appearing in Trial Court. In a situation wherein chargesheet has been filed and the trial is in progress, direction to appear in police station is prima facie not tenable. It is not a case in which the appellant is not appearing during trial before the Trial Court. However, cancellation of bail merely on the pretext of non-appearance in police station, may not be a correct approach and a good ground," the Court observed.
Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall continue on bail and must regularly attend the trial court unless exempted by a competent order.
Case : Sheikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185