Police Inspector Accused of Custodial Death Challenged Police Remand Conditions; Supreme Court Allows Effective Interrogation While Retaining Constitutional Safeguards
Facts
The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was accused of illegally detaining a man who allegedly died in police custody. According to the prosecution, the victim was apprehended by the Task Force on 6 May 2026, brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, and handed over to the respondent. The victim was never produced before a Magistrate, and witnesses allegedly saw him with visible injuries.
The victim’s mother filed a habeas corpus petition and later lodged a complaint alleging illegal detention, custodial torture, murder, and disappearance of the body. An FIR was registered, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, and the respondent was arrested.
The Magistrate granted eight days’ police custody but imposed extensive conditions, including continuous videography, interrogation only inside the Central Prison, lawyer’s presence during interrogation, preservation of CCTV footage, and a direction that police custody could not be extended beyond a fixed date.
The High Court retained most of these conditions with minor modifications. The State challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether courts can impose conditions during police custody that substantially restrict or frustrate effective investigation.
- Whether an accused has a right to continuous presence of a lawyer throughout interrogation under Section 38 BNSS.
- Whether interrogation must remain confined to jail premises.
- Whether continuous videography of every movement of an accused during police custody is legally required.
- Whether courts can impose an absolute limit preventing future police custody otherwise permissible under Section 187 BNSS.
Petitioner’s (State’s) Arguments
- The conditions imposed by the Magistrate and largely upheld by the High Court rendered police custody ineffective.
- Restricting interrogation to the Central Prison prevented proper crime scene reconstruction and recovery of evidence.
- Continuous videography of every movement during transit was impractical and interfered with investigation.
- The courts wrongly presumed that the SIT would use third-degree methods.
- Constitutional safeguards already protected the accused, making additional restrictions unnecessary.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondent claimed his life would be at risk if taken to Vijayawada because many persons arrested by him were lodged there.
- The safeguards imposed by the Magistrate and High Court merely protected his constitutional rights.
- The conditions were consistent with Supreme Court precedents protecting accused persons from custodial abuse.
- The High Court’s order struck the correct balance between investigation and protection of fundamental rights.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court analysed:
- Section 187 BNSS, governing police custody.
- Section 38 BNSS, granting an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation.
- Article 21 of the Constitution, protecting life, liberty and dignity.
- Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (earlier Section 27 of the Evidence Act), relating to discoveries based on information supplied by an accused.
The Court emphasised that while constitutional safeguards against custodial violence are mandatory, they cannot be expanded in a manner that defeats the statutory purpose of police custody.
The Court also noted that Section 187 BNSS intentionally provides greater flexibility for police custody than the earlier CrPC by allowing police remand within the prescribed statutory period when fresh investigative leads emerge.
Precedent Analysis
The Court primarily interpreted the statutory framework of the BNSS and constitutional protections rather than laying down a new constitutional principle.
It reaffirmed that:
- Article 21 protections are inherent and binding during every custodial interrogation.
- The right under Section 38 BNSS is only to meet an advocate during interrogation and does not extend to continuous physical presence throughout questioning.
- Safeguards must coexist with effective investigation rather than render police custody meaningless.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that several conditions imposed by the Magistrate and retained by the High Court were impractical and undermined investigation.
The Court observed that:
- Interrogation should not be confined exclusively to prison because recoveries and reconstruction often require taking the accused to relevant locations.
- Continuous recording of every minute of transit over long distances is unrealistic. What must be continuously recorded is the actual interrogation and recovery proceedings.
- Courts cannot prevent investigating agencies from seeking further police custody otherwise permissible under Section 187 BNSS.
- Section 38 BNSS does not confer a right upon an advocate to remain continuously present throughout interrogation.
- At the same time, the accused’s constitutional protections against coercion, torture and third-degree methods must remain fully enforceable.
The Court sought to balance fair investigation with protection of individual liberty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal.
It modified the conditions imposed by the Magistrate and the High Court by:
- permitting interrogation at the SIT’s designated interrogation centre instead of only inside prison;
- allowing unrestricted interrogation during the authorised period of police custody;
- clarifying that only interrogation sessions and recovery proceedings require continuous audio-visual recording, not every moment of transit;
- clarifying that lawyers may remain within sight of the accused but cannot continuously participate or interfere with interrogation;
- retaining constitutional safeguards protecting the accused against torture and coercion;
- directing the SIT to conduct a fair, scientific and impartial investigation.
Case Details
Case: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026)
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: 27 July 2026
Result: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court modified the police custody conditions, removed impractical restrictions on investigation, retained constitutional safeguards for the accused, and permitted effective custodial interrogation by the SIT.
