![Trial Courts Must Inform Accused of Right to Legal Aid Before Examining Witnesses; NDPS Bail After 4 Years: Supreme Court in Reginamary Chellamani v. State [2026 INSC 127]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Before witnesses are examined, trial Courts must inform an accused of the right to legal representation and to a legal aid counsel if a counsel cannot be afforded, and must record the offer, the accused's response and the action taken in their orders. The Supreme Court laid down this procedure while granting bail to an NDPS accused who had been in custody for over 4 years, and directed that the order be sent to the Chief Justices of all High Courts.
In Reginamary Chellamani v. State rep. by Superintendent of Customs (2026 INSC 127), the Supreme Court granted regular bail to an accused charged under the NDPS Act read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an alleged commercial quantity, because she had been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days and an identically situated co-passenger had already been granted bail by the Court (pp. 1–3). Noting that she had not cross-examined witnesses at the initial stage until she engaged her own counsel, the Court directed trial Courts to inform accused persons of their right to legal representation and legal aid, and to record this before commencing examination of witnesses (p. 4). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal (pp. 3–5).
Status: Madras High Court order dated 24.07.2025 in Crl.O.P. No. 7857/2025 set aside; appellant directed to be released on bail on stringent conditions to be fixed by the trial Court; general directions issued to trial Courts on legal aid; Criminal Appeal allowed (pp. 1, 3–5).
Note: This is a reportable Order without numbered paragraphs; references below are to page numbers of the Order.
Headnote: Duty to Inform Accused of Legal Aid
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 – Customs Act, 1962 – Section 135 – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Prolonged incarceration – Parity with co-accused – Right to legal representation – Legal aid counsel – Duty of trial Court before examination of witnesses – Directions to all High Courts.
Held: (i) Although the contraband allegedly seized from the appellant was stated to be above the commercial quantity, she had been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days (p. 2).
(ii) Given the length of incarceration, and as an identically situated accused who travelled with her on the same flight had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, the same relief was granted to her (pp. 2–3).
(iii) Bail was granted on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court, with a direction to surrender her passport, cooperate in the trial and not take unnecessary adjournments; the trial Court was to endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest (p. 3).
(iv) No observations were made on the merits; the order was only for the limited purpose of bail (pp. 3–4).
(v) Trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings must inform the accused of the right to legal representation and to legal aid counsel if they cannot afford a counsel, and must record the offer, the accused's response and the action taken in their orders before commencing examination of witnesses; this procedure must be followed scrupulously (p. 4).
(vi) The order is to be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts for issue of suitable instructions to trial Courts in each State (p. 5).
(pp. 1–5)
Case Details: Reginamary Chellamani v. State (2026 INSC 127)
Final Outcome: Criminal Appeal allowed; regular bail granted on conditions to be fixed by the trial Court; directions issued to all trial Courts on informing and recording the accused's right to legal representation and legal aid.
Case: Reginamary Chellamani v. State rep. by Superintendent of Customs
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 127
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18886/2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 5 February 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Order of the Court; no individual author named)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29; Customs Act, 1962 – Section 135
Impugned Order: Order dated 24.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 7857/2025, denying regular bail in Case R.R. No. 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022 before the Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai) (pp. 1–2)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Custody of 4 years 1 month and 28 days, together with bail already granted to an identically situated co-passenger, justified bail despite the alleged commercial quantity (pp. 2–3).
- Bail is subject to stringent conditions to be fixed by the trial Court, surrender of passport and cooperation in the trial without unnecessary adjournments (p. 3).
- Trial Courts must inform every accused of the right to legal representation and to legal aid counsel if a counsel cannot be afforded (p. 4).
- The offer, the accused's response and the action taken must be recorded in the trial Court's orders before examination of witnesses begins, and this procedure must be followed scrupulously (p. 4).
- The order is to be circulated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts for instructions to trial Courts (p. 5).
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant was prosecuted in Case R.R. No. 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022) before the Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The contraband allegedly seized from her person was stated to be above the commercial quantity (pp. 1–2).
The Madras High Court denied her regular bail by order dated 24.07.2025. By the date of the Supreme Court's order she had been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days, and an identically situated accused who had travelled with her on the same flight had been granted bail by the Supreme Court (pp. 1–2).
The Court also noted that the appellant had not cross-examined the witnesses at the initial stage; she was permitted to do so only after she engaged her own counsel and her application to re-examine those witnesses was allowed (p. 4).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail in view of her prolonged custody and parity with a co-accused (pp. 2–3).
- What trial Courts must do to ensure that an accused is informed of the right to legal representation and legal aid before witnesses are examined (p. 4).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Length of custody and parity (pp. 2–3): Although the alleged quantity was commercial, the Court found that the appellant had been in custody for over four years and that an identically situated co-passenger on the same flight had already been granted bail by the Court; it was therefore inclined to grant her the same relief at that stage.
Conditions of bail (p. 3): The appellant was to be released on stringent conditions fixed by the trial Court, surrender her passport, cooperate during the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The trial Court was asked to try to conclude the trial at the earliest.
No comment on merits (pp. 3–4): The Court clarified that it had made no observations on the merits and that anything said was only for the limited purpose of bail.
Right to legal representation (p. 4): The Court noted that the appellant could cross-examine witnesses only after engaging her own counsel and obtaining leave to re-examine them. It held that trial Courts faced with such situations must inform the accused of the right to legal representation and to a legal aid counsel, and must record the offer, the response and the action taken before commencing examination of witnesses.
Circulation to High Courts (p. 5): To give effect to this procedure, the order was directed to be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts so that suitable instructions could be issued to trial Courts in each State.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Appeal allowed and the High Court's order dated 24.07.2025 set aside (p. 3).
- Appellant directed to be released on bail on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court, and to surrender her passport before the trial Court (p. 3).
- Appellant to cooperate during the trial and not take unnecessary adjournments; trial Court to endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest (p. 3).
- Trial Courts to inform the accused of the right to legal representation and legal aid, and record the offer, response and action taken before commencing examination of witnesses (p. 4).
- Order to be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts for instructions to trial Courts (p. 5).
Legal Principle Laid Down
In every criminal trial, before witnesses are examined, the trial Court must inform the accused of the right to legal representation and to be represented by legal aid counsel if the accused cannot afford one, and must record in its order the offer made, the accused's response and the action taken. Prolonged custody, together with parity with an identically situated co-accused who has been granted bail, may justify bail even where the alleged quantity under the NDPS Act is commercial (pp. 2–4).
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedents were cited or discussed in the Order. The Court referred only to its own earlier grant of bail to an identically situated co-accused who travelled on the same flight (p. 2).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the Order (which has no numbered paragraphs; page numbers are given). For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Page 2: "We, however, find that the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days as on date."
Pages 2–3: "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."
Page 4: "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."
Page 4: "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."
Page 4: "This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously."
Page 5: "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."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For trial Courts: Before the first witness is examined, the record must show that the accused was told of the right to a lawyer and to legal aid, the response, and the follow-up action (p. 4).
- For undertrial accused: An accused who went unrepresented at the start of trial has a recorded safeguard, and the order shows that leave to re-examine witnesses may follow once counsel is engaged (p. 4).
- For High Courts: Chief Justices are to issue suitable instructions to all trial Courts in their States (p. 5).
- For NDPS bail: Long custody and parity with an identically situated co-accused can support bail even where commercial quantity is alleged, on stringent conditions including surrender of passport (pp. 2–3).
FAQs on Duty to Inform Accused of Legal Aid
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Reginamary Chellamani v. State?
It granted regular bail to an NDPS accused in custody for over four years and directed trial Courts to inform and record the accused's right to legal representation and legal aid before examining witnesses (pp. 2–4).
2. What must a trial Court do before witnesses are examined?
It must inform the accused of the right to legal representation and to legal aid counsel if a counsel cannot be afforded, and record the offer, the response and the action taken in its orders (p. 4).
3. Why was bail granted despite the alleged commercial quantity?
Because of custody of 4 years 1 month and 28 days and because an identically situated co-passenger had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court (pp. 2–3).
4. What conditions were attached to the bail?
Stringent conditions to be fixed by the trial Court, surrender of passport, cooperation during trial and no unnecessary adjournments (p. 3).
5. How will the legal aid direction reach trial Courts?
The order is to be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts so that instructions can be issued to the trial Courts in each State (p. 5).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 127, Reginamary Chellamani v. State, right to legal representation, legal aid counsel, duty of trial court, examination of witnesses, NDPS bail, commercial quantity, prolonged incarceration, parity in bail, Section 135 Customs Act, Section 8(c) NDPS Act,Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Reginamary Chellamani v. State
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).