Cancellation of Bail Cannot Be Mechanical After Chargesheet — Supreme Court Restores Bail
The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) cancelling bail granted to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, holding that bail cannot be cancelled mechanically once the trial has commenced.
The appeal was filed by Sheikh Irshad @ Monu, challenging the High Court’s order dated 9 October 2025, by which his bail was earlier granted on 22 August 2022 and then cancelled on the ground that he failed to comply with a condition requiring appearance at the police station twice a month.
Challenge To Cancellation Of Bail
The appeal was preferred by Sheikh Irshad @ Monu, assailing the High Court’s order dated 9 October 2025, whereby bail granted to him on 22 August 2022 in Criminal Application (BA) No. 626 of 2022 was cancelled. The cancellation followed the State’s application alleging that the appellant failed to comply with the bail condition requiring his appearance at the police station on the 1st and 16th of every month.
Case Background
The appellant was named as an accused in FIR No. 102 of 2020, registered at Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for offences punishable under:
- Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and
- Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA.
The seized contraband was 2 kg 728 grams of ganja, which falls within the non-commercial (intermediate) quantity category. Prior to being enlarged on bail, the appellant had undergone custody for approximately one year and eleven months. After the filing of the chargesheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was pending trial.
Supreme Court’s Findings
- The chargesheet had already been filed;
- The case had been committed to the Sessions Court; and
- The appellant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court in compliance with its directions.
In this factual backdrop, the Court found the High Court’s approach in cancelling bail to be legally flawed. The Bench made it clear that the nature and object of bail conditions evolve once the investigation is complete and the matter enters the trial stage.
Significantly, the Court observed:
“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… 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 also noted that this was not a case where the appellant had absconded, attempted to influence witnesses, tampered with evidence, or failed to appear before the Trial Court.
Principles Governing Cancellation Of Bail
While not expressly elaborating on precedent, the Court’s reasoning reinforces the settled principle that cancellation of bail stands on a different and higher footing than rejection of bail at the initial stage, and requires clear proof of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances.
The Bench implicitly cautioned against routine or mechanical cancellation of bail based solely on technical or procedural non-compliance, particularly when the accused is participating in trial proceedings.
Court's Verdict
Setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall continue to remain on bail and appear regularly before the Trial Court, unless exempted by a competent court. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Sheikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 60194 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J. K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi