Supreme Court of India
REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI versus STATE REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS
- Decided
- 5 February 2026
- Judges listed
- SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2026] 2 S.C.R. 398 · 2026 INSC 127
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 399
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 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, 1985 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
pp. 399–400
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.
p. 400
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.
p. 400
The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025.
p. 400
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.
p. 400
The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, shall cooperate during the course of the trial and shall not take unnecessary adjournments.
p. 400
The trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest.
p. 400
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.
p. 400
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.
p. 400
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.
p. 401
This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously.
p. 401
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.
p. 401
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
p. 401