REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI versus STATE REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 05-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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,  
Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai,  
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, set
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.