The Supreme Court has held that the Trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings must inform the accused of their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The Apex Court also held that the Trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard and the response of the accused to such offer before commencing examination of the witnesses.

The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the denial of regular bail by the Madras High Court in relation to the Case filed under EC and NDPS Act Cases 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.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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.”

Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the amount of contraband substance allegedly seized from the person of the appellant was 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”, it noted.

Considering the length of the incarceration that the appellant had already suffered, and the fact that an identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with the appellant, on the same flight, had been granted bail, the Bench granted relied to the appellant.

The Bench, thus, directed the appellant to be released on bail in connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent terms and conditions that were to be fixed by the Trial Court. “In addition, the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, shall surrender her passport before the trial Court”, it ordered.

Thus, ordering the Trial Courts to inform the accused of their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel and record their response before commencing examination of the witnesses, the Bench directed, “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.”

Cause Title: Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Customs (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 127)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, AOR Swastik Dalai, Advocates M. Srinivasan, Kaushitaki Sharma, Bagavathy Vennimalai, E. Shanthakumar, T. Yuvaresh

Respondent: ASG S.D. Sanjay, Advocates Navroop Jawanda, Parthvi Ahuja, Khushal Kolwar, Disha Thakkar, AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates Rajat Nair, Aastha Singh, Mili Baxi, Alankar Gupta, Raman Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KumarJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.