REGINAMARY CHELLAMANIversusSTATE REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

          [2026] 2 S.C.R. 398 : 2026 INSC 127

              Reginamary Chellamani
                         v.
      State Rep by Superintendent of Customs
              (Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2026)
                       05 February 2026
    [Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to grant of bail to the appellant for commission of
offence punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and
29 of the NDPS Act r/w s.135 of the Customs Act; and the right
of the accused to free legal aid counsel.

                           Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c)
r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 – Customs Act, 1962 –
s.135 – Bail – Grant of – Case registered against the appellant
for the offences punishable u/s.8(c) r/w ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23,
28 and 29 of the NDPS Act r/w s.135 of the Customs Act, on
account of seizure of contraband substance from the person
of the appellant above the commercial quantity prescribed –
Denial of regular bail by the High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has
already suffered-4 years 1 month and 28 days, and as an
identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with
the appellant, on the same flight, has been granted bail by this
Court, the appellant granted bail at this stage on stringent terms
and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – Impugned order set
aside. [Paras 3-6]
Legal aid – Free legal aid – Right of the accused to legal
representation – Trial courts dealing with criminal proceedings,
to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and
their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the
event they cannot afford a counsel – Trial courts to record
the offer made to the accused, their response to such offer
and also the action taken in their orders, before commencing
examination of the witnesses – This procedure to be adopted
and put in practice scrupulously – Order to be communicated
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                                            399

 Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs


     to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to enable suitable
     instructions being issued in this regard to all the concerned
     trial courts within the State. [Paras 11-13]

                                      List of Acts
     Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Customs
     Act, 1962.

                                   List of Keywords
     Grant of bail; Right of the accused to free legal aid counsel;
     Contraband substance; Denial of regular bail; Length of
     incarceration; Identically situated accused person; Legal aid; Free
     legal aid.

                                 Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     701 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 7857 of 2025

                              Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv., Swastik Dalai, M. Srinivasan,
     M s . K a u s h i t a k i S h a r m a , M s . B a g a v a t h y Ve n n i m a l a i ,
     E. Shanthakumar, T. Yuvaresh.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., Ms. Navroop Jawanda, Ms. Parthvi Ahuja,
     Khushal Kolwar, Ms. Disha Thakkar, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rajat
     Nair, Ms. Aastha Singh, Ms. Mili Baxi, Alankar Gupta, Raman Yadav.

                   Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                          Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is aggrieved by the denial
     of regular bail by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, vide order
     dated 24.07.2025 passed in Crl.O.P. No. 7857/2025, in relation
400                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       to Case R.R. No. 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022 on the file of the
       learned Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases,
       Chennai), for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with
       Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
       and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 read with Section 135 of
       the Customs Act, 1962.
3.     The amount of contraband substance allegedly seized from the
       person of the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is stated to be
       above the commercial quantity prescribed in that regard under
       the aforestated enactment. We, however, find that the appellant,
       Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month
       and 28 days as on date.
4.     Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already
       suffered and as an identically situated accused person, who was
       travelling along with the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, on the
       same flight, has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to
       grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage.
5.     The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order
       dated 24.07.2025.
6.     The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is directed to be released
       on bail in connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent
       terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court. In addition, the
       appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, shall surrender her passport
       before the trial Court.
7.     The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, shall cooperate during the
       course of the trial and shall not take unnecessary adjournments.
8.     The trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest.
9.     We clarify that we have not made any observations/comments on
       the merits of the case and any observation made in this order is
       meant only for the limited purpose of grant of bail.
10. We may also note at this stage that the appellant did not cross
    examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she
    engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those
    witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so.


1    “NDPS Act”, for short
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         401

 Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs


11. It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings,
    faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal
    representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid
    counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts
    shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response
    of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon
    in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses.
12. This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously.
13. This order shall be communicated to the Chief Justices of all the High
    Courts to enable suitable instructions being issued in this regard to
    all the concerned trial Courts within the State.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain