Supreme Court Grants Bail After 4 Years’ Custody, Quashes Madras HC Order in NDPS Case:

Supreme Court Grants Bail After 4 Years’ Custody, Quashes Madras HC Order in NDPS Case The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant after over four years’ custody and parity with the co-accused, quashing the Madras High Court’s refusal. Bail is subject to strict conditions, passport surrender, speedy trial, and directions ensuring legal aid compliance by trial courts nationwide. An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court of India by Reginamary Chellamani, challenging an order dated July 24, 2025, passed by the Madras High Court. The impugned order had refused her regular bail in an NDPS and Customs Act case involving alleged possession of a commercial quantity of contraband (goods that are illegal to possess, import, or export).

Also Read

ROC Penalises Director for Incorrect Charge Disclosure in Financial Statements

The court had noted that she had already been in custody for 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days, and also another accused who was travelling with her on the same flight had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. Considering such a long period of imprisonment with the co-accused, the court decided to grant her bail at this stage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decided to quash the impugned Madras High Court order dated July 24, 2025, and the appellant will be released; however, simultaneously, some strict conditions will be imposed on her to be fixed by the trial court. Additionally, she has been asked to surrender her passport before the trial court. Also directed her to avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Also Read

Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders

The trial court has also been directed to complete the trial as soon as possible. During the proceedings, the court observed that the appellant had not cross-examined witnesses and only did so later after engaging her own lawyer and receiving permission from the court. The Supreme Court emphasised that trial courts must inform accused persons about their right to have legal representation and the availability of legal aid if they are not capable of affording a lawyer. Courts must also record whether such an offer was made, how the accused responded, and what action was taken before starting the witness examination. The Court directed that this procedure be strictly followed and that the order be circulated to Chief Justices of all High Courts so that appropriate instructions can be issued to trial courts across the country.