IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18886/2025)
REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS – RESPONDENT
ORDER
Leave Granted
The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, appeals against the denial of regular bail by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, as per the order dated 24.07.2025 in Crl.O.P. No. 7857/2025. This appeal is related to Case R.R. No. 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022) presided over by the learned Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai.
The offences stand as punishable under Section 8(c) in conjunction 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 alleged contraband seized from Reginamary Chellamani exceeds the prescribed commercial quantity stipulated in the relevant legislation.
As of today, the appellant has been in custody for 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days. Given the duration of her incarceration and the fact that an identically situated accused, who was on the same flight, was granted bail by this Court, we find sufficient grounds to grant bail to Reginamary Chellamani.
Appeal Outcome
The appeal is permitted, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025. Reginamary Chellamani shall be released on bail concerning the mentioned NDPS case, subject to stringent terms and conditions established by the trial Court. Furthermore, the appellant is required to surrender her passport to the trial Court.
The appellant must cooperate throughout the trial process and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The trial Court is urged to expedite the trial proceedings.
Legal Representation Rights
It is important to note that we have not made any observations regarding the merits of this case; any observations should be interpreted solely for the bail decision. The appellant’s initial inability to cross-examine witnesses until engaging legal counsel highlights the necessity for trial Courts to inform defendants of their right to legal representation. In cases where individuals cannot afford a lawyer, authorities should offer legal aid. Trial Courts need to document the offered legal representation, the accused’s response, and subsequent actions before witness examination.
This order will be communicated to all Chief Justices of State High Courts for further instructions to ensure compliance across all trial Courts.
Pending applications, if any, are to be disposed of as per this order.
. J. (SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 05, 2026.
. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)