Leave granted.
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 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,
Deepak Guglani
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.
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.
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
1 “NDPS Act”, for short
relief to the appellant at this stage.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated
24.07.2025.
is directed to be released on bail in
connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent terms and conditions to be
fixed by the trial Court. In addition, the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani,
shall surrender her passport before the trial Court.
shall cooperate during the course of the trial and shall not take unnecessary
adjournments.
The trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest.
We clarify that we have not made any
observations/comments on the merits of the case and any observation made in this
order is meant only for the limited
purpose of grant of bail.
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.
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.
This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously.
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.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.