Reginamary Chellamani v. State (Rep. by Superintendent of Customs)

This judgment has been summarised by Advocate Swati Sharma , LL.B graduate from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18886/2025)

Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 05 February 2026

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background and Facts

The present appeal arose from an order dated 24 July 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. (Criminal Original Petition No.) 7857/2025, whereby the appellant, Ms. Reginamary Chellamani, was denied regular bail. 

The appellant was facing prosecution in Case R.R. No. (Raising Report No.) 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022) pending before the learned Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai. She was charged for 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; and
• Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962

The contraband allegedly seized from the appellant was stated to be above the prescribed commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

Aggrieved by the denial of bail by the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was granted, converting the matter into a criminal appeal.

Issue Before the Court

1. Whether the appellant, accused of offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act and having undergone prolonged incarceration, was entitled to grant of regular bail.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court took note of the following significant factors:

1. Prolonged Incarceration: The appellant had been in custody for 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days as on the date of the order.
2. Parity with Co-Accused: An identically situated co-accused, who had travelled on the same flight as the appellant, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
3. Trial Proceedings: The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had initially not cross-examined certain prosecution witnesses, which could prejudice her defence. Since the right to effective legal representation and cross-examination forms an essential part of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that trial courts must ensure that accused persons are informed of their right to counsel and legal aid before recording evidence.The Court noted that initially the appellant had not cross-examined certain witnesses. However, after engaging private counsel and upon being permitted to re-examine the witnesses, she was allowed to exercise that right.

Considering these aspects, particularly the length of incarceration and parity with the co-accused, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the relief of bail at this stage.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 24 July 2025.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail, subject to:

1. Stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court;
2. Surrender of her passport before the trial court;
3. Cooperation during trial proceedings;
4. Avoidance of unnecessary adjournments.

The trial court was directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest.