The Supreme Court of India has granted regular bail to an accused in a narcotics case after noting that she had remained in custody for more than four years and that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court also issued important directions to trial courts across the country to ensure that accused persons are informed of their right to legal representation and legal aid before witness examination begins.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that prolonged incarceration was a significant factor, particularly when a co-accused who had been travelling with the appellant on the same flight had already been granted bail by the Court earlier.
The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, had challenged a Madras High Court order dated July 24, 2025, which denied her regular bail in a case involving alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, along with provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
The allegations involved seizure of contraband in quantities above the commercial threshold, which typically attracts stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.
At the time of the Supreme Court’s consideration, the appellant had already undergone custody for approximately four years, one month, and twenty-eight days.
Taking these circumstances into account, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to stringent terms and conditions to be determined by the trial court.
The Court further directed that the appellant must surrender her passport, cooperate with the trial, and avoid unnecessary adjournments. It also asked the trial court to make efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that its observations were limited to the question of bail and should not influence the merits of the trial.
While examining the record, the Court noted that the appellant had not cross-examined witnesses at an early stage and only did so after engaging her own counsel and obtaining permission for re-examination.
This prompted the Court to emphasize a broader procedural safeguard. It held that trial courts must inform accused persons of their right to legal representation and of their entitlement to legal aid if they cannot afford a lawyer. The Court directed that trial courts must record in their orders the offer of legal representation made to the accused, the response of the accused, and the steps taken thereafter, before commencing examination of witnesses.
The Bench stressed that this procedure must be followed scrupulously to ensure fairness in criminal trials.
Recognizing the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court ordered that its directions be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts so that appropriate instructions can be issued to trial courts across the country.
Case Details
Case Title: Reginamary Chellamani Versus State
Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No. 18886/2025
Date: 05/02/2026
Read More: IBC Can’t Be Used to Launder Proceeds of Crime: NCLT Recalls Insolvency ProceedingsÂ
