The Supreme Court has ruled that bail cannot be revoked just because an accused person failed to follow a condition requiring them to periodically report to the police—especially when the investigation is already over and the trial has started.

This decision came in the case of Sheikh Irshad @ Monu, who had appealed against an order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The High Court had cancelled his bail based only on the State’s claim that he did not comply with the reporting requirement.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal, restored the original bail order and held that the High Court’s decision to cancel bail solely on account of non-compliance with the reporting condition was not legally justified.

Background:

Sheikh Irshad was named as an accused in a 2020 FIR registered at Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur, for offences under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and Sections 3(1)(i)(i), 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 remained in custody for nearly one year and eleven months before being granted bail by the High Court in August 2022. One of the conditions of bail required him to report to the local police station on the 1st and 16th of every month. In 2023, the State sought cancellation of bail on the ground of non-compliance with this condition. The High Court accepted the State’s submission and cancelled the bail on October 9, 2025.

Supreme Court’s Findings:

The Supreme Court noted that after bail was granted, the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet filed, and the matter committed to the Sessions Court, where the trial is currently ongoing. It was also recorded that the accused had 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," observed the court.

Emphasizing the principle, the Court stated that cancelling bail “merely on the pretext of non-appearance in police station” is not a valid ground, particularly when the accused continues to cooperate with the trial process.

Order:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and directed that the appellant shall continue on bail, subject to the condition of regular attendance at the trial court unless exempted by a competent order.

Case Title: Sheikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra