The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention, even in serious drug offences involving commercial quantities, cannot be ignored when deciding bail. In a significant departure from rigid application of severity norms, the Court granted bail to an accused who had spent over four years in custody without trial conclusion, underscoring the constitutional imperative of timely justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, was arrested in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the Customs Act, 1962. Authorities alleged that she was in possession of a contraband substance exceeding the statutory threshold for commercial quantity. The case was registered as R.R. No. 41/2021 and later charge-sheeted as C.C. No. 225/2022 before the Principal Special Judge under the NDPS and EC Acts in Chennai.
Procedural History
- 2021: Arrest and initial custody commenced
- 2022: Charge sheet filed; trial proceedings initiated
- 2025: Appellant filed a bail application before the Madras High Court, which was denied
- 2025: Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court
- February 2026: Supreme Court heard the matter and granted bail
Relief Sought
The appellant sought regular bail on the grounds of excessive pre-trial detention exceeding four years, lack of trial progress, and the fact that a co-accused travelling with her had already been granted bail by this Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged pre-trial detention, even in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, can justify the grant of bail in the absence of a final determination on guilt or innocence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that excessive delay in trial violates Article 21 and that bail is the rule, jail the exception. They emphasized that the appellant had been incarcerated for over four years without trial conclusion, while the co-accused had been released. The delay was attributed to procedural lapses, including failure to provide timely legal aid.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the offence involved a commercial quantity of narcotics, which under settled jurisprudence, warrants stringent bail conditions. They argued that the gravity of the offence and the risk of evidence tampering justified continued detention, and that the appellant’s failure to cross-examine witnesses earlier indicated lack of diligence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but held that the right to a speedy trial is not contingent on the nature of the offence. It noted that the appellant had already spent 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days in custody - a period far exceeding the average trial duration for similar cases. The Court observed that the co-accused, similarly situated, had been granted bail, making denial of bail to the appellant arbitrary under Article 14.
"We are inclined to grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage."
The Court further emphasized that procedural fairness was compromised when the appellant was not informed of her right to legal aid at the outset. The failure to record the offer of legal representation and the accused’s response was deemed a serious lapse. The Court held that trial courts must scrupulously document such offers and responses before proceeding with witness examination.
The Court explicitly clarified that its order was not an assessment of the merits of the case, nor did it imply any finding on the appellant’s guilt or innocence. The grant of bail was strictly based on the duration of incarceration and the constitutional obligation to ensure timely justice.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention in NDPS cases, even involving commercial quantities, warrants bail if the trial has not progressed meaningfully. The appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions, including surrender of her passport and cooperation in trial proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pre-Trial Detention Overrides Offence Severity
- Practitioners must now argue that any accused detained beyond three years without trial progress has a strong claim to bail, regardless of the offence’s severity
- Courts cannot rely solely on the nature of the offence to deny bail when constitutional rights are violated by delay
- Bail applications should be supported by affidavits detailing the duration of custody and trial delays
Legal Aid Offer Must Be Recorded
- Trial courts must now record in writing: (1) the offer of legal aid, (2) the accused’s response, and (3) any action taken
- Failure to do so renders proceedings vulnerable to challenge under Article 21
- Defence counsel should file applications seeking production of such records if not provided
Co-Accused Parity in Bail Decisions
- When co-accused in the same case are granted bail, denial to another accused without reasoned distinction violates equality before law
- Courts must justify differential treatment in bail orders with specific, case-specific reasons
- This principle applies across all statutes, not just NDPS
