2026 INSC 744 | 27 July 2026
What the case was about
This case tested the limits of how many conditions a Magistrate may fasten to a police-custody remand without undermining the investigation itself. The State of Andhra Pradesh asked the Supreme Court to review orders passed by a Vijayawada Magistrate and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in respect of an accused Police Inspector. While the lower courts granted the prosecution’s request for police custody in a custodial-death investigation, they did so subject to a web of restrictions: interrogation had to take place inside a distant prison, every movement of the accused had to be filmed without interruption, an advocate had to be physically present at all times, and the custody period could not be extended no matter what the investigation revealed. The State argued that these restrictions made effective investigation impossible. The Court therefore had to balance the accused’s constitutional safeguards against the investigating agency’s statutory authority under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The key facts
The respondent, Police Inspector Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, stands charged in Crime No. 107 of 2026 registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, for the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna on 6 May 2026. The deceased was apprehended by Task Force personnel, brought to the police station, and entrusted to the respondent. He was allegedly never produced before a Magistrate, and witnesses later saw him inside the station with visible injuries. After the victim’s mother filed a habeas corpus petition and a subsequent complaint, the Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The respondent was arrested on 23 June 2026 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
The prosecution later sought police remand under Section 187 of the BNSS. On 2 July 2026, the Magistrate granted eight days of police custody at the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, but attached fifteen conditions. On 7 July 2026, the High Court partly modified the Magistrate’s order by adjusting the dates and permitting the SIT to take the accused to Vijayawada for scene reconstruction, while broadly retaining the Magistrate’s original conditions—including the continuous-videography requirement, which it adapted to cover transit between the prison and Vijayawada. The State then moved the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The appeal raised three main questions:
- Whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate and retained by the High Court — confining interrogation to a distant prison, mandating continuous videography of every movement, permitting an advocate to remain present throughout interrogation, and fixing a non-extendable custody cap — are legal and workable.
- Whether such conditions impermissibly encroach upon the investigating agency’s statutory rights under Sections 187 and 38 of the BNSS.
- Whether videographic safeguards extend to uninterrupted recording of the accused’s transit between locations.
What the Court decided and why
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the State’s appeal and substantially modified the conditions.
The Court began by clarifying the scope of the exercise: it was concerned “solely with the narrow question of the legality and workability of the conditions imposed during police custody period” (para 20).
Location of interrogation: The Court held that confining the entire custodial interrogation to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, was “neither justified nor sustainable” (para 21). Because the offence was allegedly committed in and around Krishna Lanka Police Station in Vijayawada, and because effective interrogation requires the investigating officer to be able to take the accused to the actual place of discovery and scene reconstruction, restricting the SIT to a prison roughly 160 kilometres away would frustrate the very purpose of the remand. The Court therefore set aside the prison-only condition and directed that interrogation may take place at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT or an equivalent secure facility at Vijayawada (para 27).
Extendable custody window: The Court also removed the absolute, non-extendable cap on police custody. It noted that Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS deliberately enlarges the statutory window compared with the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the BNSS, police custody not exceeding fifteen days in aggregate may be sought in parts during the first forty or sixty days of detention, rather than being locked into the first fifteen days alone (para 22). A rigid, non-extendable outer limit imposed by the Magistrate would foreclose this legislative flexibility and could not be sustained.
Lawyer’s presence: Interpreting Section 38 BNSS, the Court emphasised that the statutory guarantee is the right to “meet an advocate of choice during interrogation.” It “does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained” (para 24). The operative order retained the presence of a lawyer within the site of interrogation, but clarified that such presence does not carry a right to intervene (para 27).
Videography: The Court accepted that audio-visual recording of actual interrogation and discovery proceedings is a salutary safeguard. However, it ruled that a direction to continuously videograph every movement of the accused, including transit over long distances, “is, in our view, unworkable in practice” (para 25). The safeguard is satisfied by recording the interrogation and any recovery proceedings themselves; it does not require an inflexible mandate to film every minute of travel (para 27).
Finally, the Court addressed the accused’s apprehension that his life would be in danger at Vijayawada by retaining the direction that designated officers remain jointly and severally responsible for his safety throughout the custody period.
In its operative directions, the Court permitted police custody for seven days from production before the Magistrate (total not exceeding fifteen days), allowed interrogation at the SIT’s Vijayawada facility, mandated audio-visual recording only of actual interrogation and discovery, retained safeguards against third-degree methods, and required that the original recordings be produced before the Magistrate (para 27).
Why it matters
The judgment is a significant early interpretation of the BNSS police-custody framework. It makes clear that Magistrates may — and must — impose constitutional safeguards under Article 21 to ensure that an accused is not subjected to coercion or threat, but they cannot impose unworkable restrictions that render the statutory right to investigate nugatory. By parsing Section 38 to distinguish between a right to consult an advocate and a claim of continuous physical presence, and by limiting mandatory videography to the interrogation room rather than the highway, the Court has supplied practical guidance that trial courts can apply in sensitive cases. For investigations into grave charges such as custodial death, the ruling strikes a measured balance: the accused retains robust protections, yet the SIT retains the operational latitude it needs to uncover evidence and reconstruct the events in question.