Prolonged Incarceration Offends Liberty Even Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Grants Bail After Four Years of Custody Despite Commercial Quantity Involved

“Length of custody and parity with co-accused weigh in favour of bail – Stringency of law cannot eclipse fundamental rights under Article 21” –  In a significant ruling reaffirming the primacy of personal liberty under Article 21, the Supreme Court of India granted regular bail to Reginamary Chellamani, an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), after more than four years of incarceration without trial.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that despite the involvement of a commercial quantity of contraband, the length of time already spent in custody and parity with a co-accused—who had been granted bail earlier by the Court—justified the grant of bail. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order dated 24.07.2025, which had denied bail.

“Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already suffered and as an identically situated accused person... has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to grant the same relief,” the Court observed.

“Stringency of NDPS Act Cannot Override Right to Fair and Speedy Trial”: Court Criticises Delay and Upholds Bail as a Constitutional Necessity

The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, had been arrested in Case R.R. No. 41/2021 (C.C. No. 225/2022) before the Principal Special Judge under the EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The seized contraband was said to exceed the “commercial quantity” threshold—a condition that ordinarily attracts the rigours of the NDPS Act’s bail restrictions.

However, the Supreme Court drew attention to a critical constitutional consideration: the appellant had remained in pre-trial detention for over 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days, with no conclusion of trial in sight. The Court observed that such prolonged incarceration, even under stringent statutes like the NDPS Act, must be balanced against the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.

“Prolonged pre-trial custody offends personal liberty and must be balanced even in stringent statutes like NDPS Act,” the Court emphasised, warning against allowing statutory rigour to override constitutional protections.

The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s release on regular bail, to be granted on stringent conditions to be fixed by the trial court, which was also instructed to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously.

“Trial Courts Must Inform Accused of Right to Counsel”: Apex Court Issues Directions on Legal Aid in Criminal Trials

Beyond the bail decision, the Supreme Court took serious note of the fact that the appellant had initially failed to cross-examine witnesses, and was allowed to do so only after she engaged her own counsel later. The Court turned this lapse into a moment of judicial introspection, issuing binding directions to all trial courts across the country.

“It is incumbent upon trial Courts... 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 Court stated.

In a move likely to affect criminal trials nationwide, the Court directed that:

• Trial courts must formally record the offer of legal aid,
• Note the response of the accused, and
• Document the steps taken,

before beginning the examination of witnesses.

The Supreme Court also directed that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justices of all High Courts, so that suitable administrative instructions may be issued to ensure compliance by subordinate trial courts in every state.

“This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously,” the bench declared, marking a significant intervention to protect fair trial rights at the ground level.

“No Observations on Merits; Bail Granted Solely on Liberty Grounds”: Court Cautions Against Misreading Order

The Court clarified that its grant of bail does not touch upon the merits of the criminal case or the veracity of the allegations under the NDPS Act. The bail was granted solely on grounds of prolonged custody and parity with a co-accused, coupled with the constitutional imperative of ensuring personal liberty.

“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,” the Court noted.

The Court also directed the appellant to surrender her passport before the trial court, cooperate with proceedings, and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

A Powerful Reminder That Liberty Cannot Wait for Trial Forever

With this ruling, the Supreme Court reasserts a critical proposition in Indian criminal jurisprudence: that no statutory presumption or procedural rigor can indefinitely imprison an undertrial, especially when the prosecution has failed to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.

While acknowledging the seriousness of NDPS offences, the Court declared that constitutional liberty cannot be a casualty of prolonged investigation or pendency.

“Length of custody and parity with a co-accused weigh in favour of bail – even in cases involving commercial quantity,” the Court held.

The decision is likely to have a wider impact, both in terms of NDPS bail jurisprudence and the obligations of trial courts in ensuring fair trial rights, particularly the right to counsel and timely legal aid.

Date of Decision: February 5, 2026