The Supreme Court has held that while safeguards against custodial abuse are essential, courts cannot impose conditions that render police custody ineffective or frustrate a lawful investigation.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta modified several stringent conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the trial court during the police remand of an Inspector accused in a custodial death case, observing that restrictions must remain workable and consistent with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A Bench held that had substantially upheld conditions governing the custodial interrogation of Inspector Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, who is accused in a case involving the alleged custodial death of a detainee.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The respondent, an Inspector of Police, is facing investigation registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, in connection with the alleged custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna on May 6, 2026. According to the prosecution, the deceased was apprehended by the Task Force personnel early in the morning and subsequently handed over to the respondent at Krishna Lanka Police Station. It is alleged that the victim was never produced before a Magistrate despite being in police custody and was seen by witnesses with visible injuries.
The victim’s mother later approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a habeas corpus petition, during which the respondent allegedly concealed the fact that the deceased had been detained. Following a formal complaint alleging illegal detention, custodial torture, disappearance of the body, and destruction of evidence, an FIR was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to investigate the matter, and the respondent was arrested on June 23, 2026.
The prosecution sought twelve days of police custody, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the missing body, recover crucial evidence, identify co-accused, reconstruct the crime scene, and confront the accused with allegedly falsified official records.
While granting eight days’ police custody, the Judicial Magistrate imposed a series of detailed safeguards. These included permitting the accused’s advocate to remain within visual range during interrogation, directing that the entire interrogation be conducted within CCTV coverage, mandating uninterrupted videography of every interrogation session, preserving original recordings, restricting interaction outside scheduled interrogation sessions, and requiring continuous monitoring of the accused’s safety. The Magistrate also prohibited any extension of police custody beyond July 10, 2026.
The State challenged several of these conditions before the High Court, arguing that they substantially interfered with the autonomy of the investigating agency. Although the High Court modified certain aspects by permitting the accused to be taken to the crime scene for recoveries and reconstruction, it retained most of the safeguards while additionally directing videography of every movement of the accused between the prison and Vijayawada.
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the apprehensions expressed by the investigating agency regarding the practical difficulties created by the imposed conditions were justified.
The Bench observed that constitutional safeguards against custodial violence already exist under Article 21 of the Constitution and are binding upon the investigating agency irrespective of specific judicial directions. At the same time, courts should avoid imposing restrictions that make meaningful investigation impossible.
The Court noted that the accused is alleged to have committed custodial death within and around Krishna Lanka Police Station, that the victim’s body is still missing, that original CCTV hard disks are yet to be recovered, and that discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam could become possible only through effective custodial interrogation. Conducting such an investigation exclusively from a prison located around 160 kilometres away would seriously undermine the investigation.
One of the principal findings of the judgment is that confining the entire custodial interrogation to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram was “neither justified nor sustainable.”
The Court observed that successful investigation often requires investigators to take an accused to the actual place where discoveries or recoveries are expected to be made. Restricting interrogation to the prison would deprive the investigating agency of this statutory power and defeat the very purpose of police custody.
Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted the SIT to interrogate the accused at its designated interrogation centre or any other equivalent police facility at Vijayawada.
The judgment also contains an important interpretation of Section 187 of the BNSS governing police custody.
The Court observed that unlike the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the BNSS permits police custody in parts, up to an aggregate of fifteen days, during the initial forty or sixty days of detention. This legislative change was specifically intended to enable investigators to seek further custodial interrogation if fresh facts or discoveries emerge during investigation.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Magistrate’s condition absolutely prohibiting any extension of police custody was legally unsustainable because it effectively nullified the statutory scheme under Section 187.
The Supreme Court also clarified the scope of Section 38 of the BNSS, which grants an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation.
The Bench held that the provision allows an accused to meet an advocate during interrogation but does not confer an unrestricted right to have the lawyer continuously present throughout every interrogation session.
While retaining the safeguard permitting the lawyer to remain within sight of the interrogation, the Court clarified that such presence cannot become an obstacle to investigation and the lawyer cannot intervene, advise, communicate with, or otherwise participate in the interrogation process.
The Court upheld videography of custodial interrogation as an important safeguard protecting both the accused and the investigating agency.
However, it described the High Court’s direction requiring uninterrupted recording of every movement of the accused during approximately 160 kilometres of transit as impractical and unworkable.
According to the Bench, interruptions due to road travel, signal loss, battery limitations, storage constraints, or security considerations are inevitable. Therefore, the safeguard should apply to the actual interrogation sessions and discovery proceedings rather than every minute of transportation.
While relaxing several procedural restrictions, the Supreme Court emphatically reiterated that the investigating agency remains under an absolute obligation not to subject the accused to threats, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment, or third-degree methods.
The Bench maintained that the Investigating Officer, senior SIT officials, and the Jail Superintendent or officer in charge of the custodial facility would remain jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the safety, life, and physical well-being of the accused throughout the police custody period.
The Supreme Court modified the earlier orders by directing that police custody would continue for seven days from the date of production before the Magistrate, ensuring that the total police custody does not exceed the statutory limit of fifteen days. The Investigating Officer would have unrestricted access to interrogate the accused during police custody. Interrogation could be conducted at the SIT’s designated interrogation centre instead of being confined to the prison. Audio-visual recording would remain mandatory for interrogation sessions and discovery proceedings, but not for uninterrupted transit. The accused’s lawyer may remain within sight of the interrogation but cannot interfere with the investigation. Original CCTV footage and videographic recordings must be produced before the Magistrate along with the statutory certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The SIT must conduct a fair, impartial, and scientific investigation uninfluenced by observations made in the judgment.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: DEPB Licences Are ‘Goods’ but Not Eligible ITC Under TNVAT: Madras High Court
