INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court, in the order dated 5 December 2025, set aside the order of the Nagur bench (Madhya Pradesh High Court) on setting aside the denial of bail due to non-appearance at the police station after the filing of the chargesheet, which is unsustainable as held by the divisional bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
BACKGROUND
The appellant was charged under sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) after he was found with 2kg 728 of ganja (non-commercial quantity). After spending almost 2 years in custody (1 year 11 months), the appellant was granted bail in August 2022 on the condition that he has to report on 1 and 16 of every month to the local police station. However, the accused failed to do so, and thus, the High Court cancelled his bail for not meeting the said condition.
KEY POINTS
- Non-tanability of the appearance.
The officials had already completed the filling of the charge sheet, and there was an ongoing trial in the Sessions court. Therefore, the court held the reporting standards set by the officials to grant bail were not maintainable.
- Regular attendance at the trial.
The Court noted the regular appearance of the accused in the trial. Thus, the court noted that the cancellation of bail merely on the grounds of non-appearance at the police station is not a valid ground for cancellation.
- Approach of liberty.
The court, by rejecting the orders of the High Court, laid importance on the liberty of the accused and ensured the balance between the rights of the accused and the procedure established by law.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The court, therefore, set a precedent. It laid that a cancellation of bail merely on the grounds of non-appearance at the local police station is not a step established by law and thus upheld the laws at hand.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. It directed that Sheikh Irshad @Monu shall continue to remain on bail and appear regularly before the Trial Court. This decision reinforces that the right to liberty should not be compromised by technical procedural requirements when the accused is otherwise compliant with trial proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
