The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, striking an absolute time limit and permitting interrogation outside the prison while retaining limited advocate presence, thereby reshaping investigative practice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against the High Court's modification of police custody conditions imposed on Inspector Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, who was accused in a custodial death case (Crime No. 107 of 2026) involving the deceased Gade Sai Krishna.
Key Facts
- 06-05-2026: Gade Sai Krishna was apprehended at Markapur at 03:00 a.m., handed over to the police at Krishna Lanka Police Station at 07:00 a.m., and entrusted to the respondent-accused.
- 02-06-2026: Mother of the deceased filed a Habeas Corpus petition (Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026) in the High Court.
- 17-06-2026: Respondent-accused was suspended from service.
- 19-06-2026: Mother lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada alleging illegal detention and custodial torture.
- 21-06-2026: Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case.
- 23-06-2026: Respondent-accused was arrested by the SIT.
- 24-06-2026: He was produced before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada and remanded to judicial custody at Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
- 25-06-2026: Prosecution filed a memo under Section 187 of the BNSS seeking twelve days of police remand.
- 02-07-2026: Magistrate granted police custody for eight days (03-07-2026 to 10-07-2026) with conditions 28.1 to 28.15.
- 07-07-2026: High Court partially allowed the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, modifying the order to a custody period from 09-07-2026 to 16-07-2026 and imposing additional videography requirements.
- 17-07-2026: High Court directed the SIT to submit videographic recordings and CCTV footage in original form before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
- 27-07-2026: Supreme Court delivered the present judgment.
Procedural History
- 23-06-2026: SIT arrested the respondent-accused.
- 24-06-2026: Production before II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada; remand to Central Prison.
- 25-06-2026: Prosecution filed memo under Section 187 BNSS for twelve-day police remand.
- 02-07-2026: Magistrate order granting police custody with detailed conditions.
- 07-07-2026: High Court (Amravati) modified the magistrate's order under Section 528 BNSS.
- 27-07-2026: Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the conditions.
Parties' Positions
- State (Appellant): Argued that the High Court's conditions unduly restricted the investigative agency, especially the absolute time limit and confinement of interrogation to the prison, rendering police custody ineffective.
- Respondent-Accused: Contended that the conditions protected his constitutional rights, prevented coercive interrogation, and were consistent with prior Supreme Court pronouncements.
Relief Sought
The State sought setting aside of the High Court's restrictive conditions and an order granting the investigating agency unrestricted custody and interrogation powers, subject only to constitutional safeguards.
Case Details
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
2026 INSC 744
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
27 July 2026
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 12344 of 2026
Bench
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
Counsel
Pet: Mr. Sidharth Luthra
Res: Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 38 provides the right to meet an advocate of the accused's choice during interrogation, but it does not require the advocate to be present continuously throughout the entire session.
Section 187(2) and (3) allow police custody to be sought in parts, with the aggregate period not exceeding fifteen days, and it may be exercised during the first forty or sixty days of the overall permissible detention period.
No. The Court clarified that only the actual interrogation sessions must be audio-visually recorded; interruptions during transit due to technical or security reasons do not constitute non-compliance.
