State of Andhra Pradeshv.Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju

Police Custody Conditions: Supreme Court Balances Investigation Rights with Constitutional Safeguards

Case Snapshot

Case Name: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju

Citation: 2026 INSC 744

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: July 27, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Police Custody/Remand, Criminal Procedure

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and modified the conditions imposed by the Trial Court and the High Court regarding police custody of a police officer accused in a custodial death case. The respondent-accused, an Inspector of Police, was charged in connection with the custodial death of an individual at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada.

The Trial Court had granted police custody for eight days subject to stringent conditions, including confining the interrogation exclusively to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram (approximately 160 kilometers away), mandating continuous videography of every movement including transit, and permitting a lawyer to remain present throughout the interrogation. The High Court partially modified the order but retained most conditions.

The Supreme Court held that while constitutional safeguards must be protected, excessive and unworkable conditions cannot be imposed that render custodial interrogation ineffective. The Court found that confining interrogation to a distant prison, requiring uninterrupted videography of transit, and mandating continuous lawyer presence exceeded the requirements of law. The Court modified the conditions to allow interrogation at the SIT's designated facility, retained videography of actual interrogation sessions (not transit), permitted lawyer presence only to observe (not intervene), and clarified the scope of Section 38 of the BNSS regarding the right to meet an advocate during interrogation.

Relevant Facts

The Crime: FIR No. 107 of 2026 was registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, relating to the custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna on May 6, 2026. The deceased was apprehended by Task Force personnel at Markapur at 3:00 a.m. and brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station at 7:00 a.m. the same day, where he was entrusted to the respondent-accused (an Inspector of Police). The deceased was never produced before a Magistrate, and witnesses saw him with visible injuries at the police station.

Suppression of Facts: The respondent-accused suppressed the fact of the deceased's apprehension and custody during habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court. He was suspended on June 17, 2026.

Registration of FIR: On June 19, 2026, the deceased's mother lodged a complaint alleging illegal detention, custodial torture resulting in death, and disappearance of the body. Crime No. 107 of 2026 was registered for offences under Sections 103(1) (murder), 238(a) (causing disappearance of evidence), and 309(6) (kidnapping) of the BNS.

Special Investigation Team: On June 21, 2026, the Government constituted an SIT to investigate. The respondent was arrested on June 23, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody on June 24, 2026.

Application for Police Custody: On June 25, 2026, the prosecution filed a memo under Section 187 of the BNSS seeking twelve days police remand, citing the need to trace the deceased's body, identify co-accused, recover material evidence, and confront the accused.

Trial Court's Order: By order dated July 2, 2026, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, granted eight days police custody subject to fifteen conditions, including:

• Confining interrogation to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram (160 km away)

• Mandating continuous videography of all interrogation sessions

• Requiring uninterrupted videography of the accused's movements

• Permitting a lawyer to remain present throughout (within 10 feet, behind glass partition)

• Making officials jointly and severally responsible for the accused's safety

• Imposing a non-extendable outer limit on custody

High Court's Order: The High Court partially modified the order, allowing the SIT to take the accused to the scene of offences for recovery, extending the custody period to July 16, 2026, requiring videography of every movement from prison to Vijayawada and back, and retaining all other conditions.

State's Appeal: The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the conditions rendered the custodial interrogation ineffective and frustrated the investigation.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the conditions imposed by the Trial Court and modified by the High Court regarding police custody of the respondent-accused were legally sustainable and workable in practice?

2. Whether confining the entirety of custodial interrogation to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram (approximately 160 kilometers away from the scene of offence) was justified and consistent with the objectives of custodial interrogation?

3. Whether the requirement of continuous videography of every movement of the accused, including transit between locations, was a reasonable and workable condition?

4. What is the true scope and meaning of Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate during interrogation?

5. Whether the non-extendable outer limit on custody imposed by the Trial Court was consistent with Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS?

Legal Framework

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including protection against custodial violence, torture, and inhuman treatment.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
  Section 38: Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
  Section 187(2) and (3): Enlarges the window during which police custody (aggregate not exceeding fifteen days) may be sought; custody is available in parts during the first forty or sixty days of total permissible detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand.

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
  Section 23: Corresponds to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (discovery of facts pursuant to information given by accused in custody).
  Section 63: Corresponds to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (admissibility of electronic records).

• Constitutional Safeguards: Protection against torture, custodial violence, and third-degree methods; right to legal representation; presumption of innocence.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific case laws but relies upon and applies well-established constitutional and criminal law principles:

1. Constitutional Protection Against Custodial Violence

The Court reiterated that Article 21 protects against custodial torture and third-degree methods, and that authorities have a duty to protect the life, limb, and personal dignity of accused persons. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments.

2. Principles Regarding Custodial Interrogation

The Court recognized that custodial interrogation is a necessary investigative tool for serious offences, particularly where discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly Section 27 of the Evidence Act) are imminent.

3. Principles Regarding Conditions on Police Custody

While courts can impose conditions to protect constitutional rights, such conditions must be reasonable, workable, and not frustrate the very purpose of custodial interrogation.

4. Principles of Statutory Interpretation

The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation to Section 38 of the BNSS, holding that the right to meet an advocate "during interrogation" does not mean the right to have the advocate present throughout the entirety of each interrogation session.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. The Balance Between Investigation Rights and Constitutional Safeguards

The Court identified the core tension in the case: the need to balance the investigating agency's statutory right to conduct unhindered interrogation with the constitutional safeguards protecting the accused's life, limb, and personal dignity.

The Court observed that the apprehension of the investigating agency regarding hurdles in effective custodial interrogation was "realistic and justified." At the same time, the apprehension expressed by the respondent-accused regarding threat to his life and personal dignity had been "taken care of" by the High Court's direction that the accused shall not be subjected to any threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, or third-degree methods.

The Court emphasized that the burden is on the SIT to ensure these safeguards regardless of any court orders, as these conditions are "inherently provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

II. Confining Interrogation to Central Prison: Unjustified and Unworkable

The Court found that confining the entirety of custodial interrogation to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram (approximately 160 kilometers from the scene of offence) was "neither justified nor sustainable."

Reasons:

• The offence of custodial death is alleged to have been committed at and in the vicinity of Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada

• The dead body remains untraced

• The original hard disks of the CCTV system are yet to be recovered

• Discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are imminent if the accused is properly interrogated

• The efficacy of the discovery procedure depends on the investigating officer being able to take the accused to the actual place of discovery, not merely interrogate about it from a distance of 160 kilometers

III. The Statutory Scheme Under Section 187 BNSS

The Court analyzed the legislative change introduced by Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS:

Under the CrPC, 1973: Police custody was available only during the first fifteen days of remand.

Under the BNSS, 2023: Police custody (aggregate not exceeding fifteen days) may be sought in parts during the first forty or sixty days of total permissible detention.

The Purpose: This legislative change was intended to meet situations where fresh facts, discoveries, or leads emerge during investigation, warranting further custodial interrogation.

Application: The Court found that Condition 28.15 (placing an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody) was unsustainable, as it foreclosed recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation might yet reveal.

IV. The Scope of Section 38 BNSS (Right to Meet Advocate)

The Court conducted a plain reading of Section 38 of the BNSS:

"Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. - When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation."

The Court's Analysis:

• The right guaranteed is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation

• It does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session

• The conditions permitting nomination of two advocates and regulating the manner and distance of the advocate's presence so as to preclude interference with or communication during interrogation were "unobjectionable and, indeed, salutary"

• However, the direction that such presence should be available "at any given point of time during the interrogation"—if construed as an unqualified entitlement to continuous presence—would travel beyond what Section 38 BNSS contemplates

V. Videography and CCTV Documentation

The Court expressed broad agreement with the High Court that safeguards such as videography and CCTV documentation are "salutary and ought ordinarily to be retained" to protect:

• The accused against allegations of coercion

• The investigating agency against unfounded allegations of impropriety

However, the Court found that requiring every movement of the accused, including transit of approximately three hours each way over a distance of 160 kilometers, to be continuously videographed without interruption was unworkable in practice.

Reasons:

• Interruptions on account of movement, signal loss, battery and storage limitations, or security considerations during transit are inherent contingencies of road travel

• It would be unrealistic and self-defeating to visit the investigating agency with an inference of impropriety merely because of such interruptions

• What the safeguard requires is that the interrogation itself (the actual questioning of or interaction with the accused) be continuously and contemporaneously recorded

• The requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, which is "a totally logistical exercise"

VI. The Respondent's Apprehension Regarding Safety

The respondent-accused apprehended that his life would be at risk if lodged for interrogation at a facility in Vijayawada, as he had, during his tenure, effected the arrest of persons presently confined there.

The Court's Response:

• This apprehension can be adequately addressed by requiring that interrogation outside the Central Prison be conducted at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT or an equivalent secure facility under police or SIT control

• The joint and several responsibility of the named officers for the accused's safety (as under Condition 28.14) should continue

• The Court found "no material on record, beyond the bald and unverified apprehension, to suggest that the designated interrogation centre would be unsafe or inadequate for this purpose"

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Conditions on Police Custody Must Be Reasonable and Workable

While courts can impose conditions to protect constitutional rights during police custody, such conditions must be reasonable, workable, and not frustrate the very purpose of custodial interrogation. Excessive conditions that render investigation ineffective are not sustainable.

2. Section 38 BNSS Does Not Mandate Continuous Lawyer Presence

The right under Section 38 of the BNSS is the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not the right to have the advocate present throughout the entirety of each interrogation session. Continuous physical presence of a lawyer during interrogation exceeds what the provision contemplates.

3. Confining Interrogation to a Distant Location is Unjustified

Where the offence is alleged to have been committed at a specific location, the dead body is untraced, and discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are imminent, confining custodial interrogation to a distant prison (160 kilometers away) is unjustified and unsustainable.

4. Videography of Interrogation Sessions is Salutary; Videography of Transit is Unworkable

While videography of actual interrogation sessions is a salutary safeguard that protects both the accused and the investigating agency, requiring uninterrupted videography of every movement of the accused during transit is unrealistic, unworkable, and not required by law.

5. Section 187 BNSS Enlarges the Window for Police Custody

Unlike the erstwhile Section 167 of the CrPC (which confined police custody to the first fifteen days), Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS allows police custody (aggregate not exceeding fifteen days) to be sought in parts during the first forty or sixty days of total permissible detention. Courts cannot impose non-extendable outer limits that foreclose recourse to this statutory provision.

6. Constitutional Safeguards Are Inherent, Not Court-Created

The protection against custodial violence, torture, and third-degree methods is inherently provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. The burden is on the investigating agency to ensure these safeguards regardless of court orders.

7. Burden of Proof on Investigating Agency

The investigating agency bears the burden of ensuring the safety, life, and physical well-being of the accused during custodial interrogation. Officials are jointly and severally responsible for the accused's safety.

8. Courts Must Not Act on Bald and Unverified Apprehensions

Courts should not impose restrictions based on bald and unverified apprehensions of the accused. Where the accused's safety concerns can be addressed by designating a secure facility and holding officials responsible, additional restrictive conditions are not warranted.

Important Court Observations

• "The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency regarding the hurdles created in effective custodial investigation thereby frustrating the entire process is realistic and justified."

• "The burden would be on the SIT to ensure all these safeguards irrespective of the impugned orders as these conditions are inherently provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

• "The efficacy of this procedure would undoubtedly be dependent upon the investigating officer being able to take the accused to the actual place of discovery, and not merely to interrogate him about it from a distance of 160 kilometers."

• "This legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of investigation warranting further custodial interrogation."

• "A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder 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."

• "It would be unrealistic, and self-defeating of the safeguard itself, to visit the investigating agency with the consequence of an inference of impropriety merely because of such an interruption."

• "The requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, which is a totally logistical exercise."

• "We find no material on record, beyond the bald and unverified apprehension, to suggest that the designated interrogation centre would be unsafe or inadequate for this purpose."

Final Outcome

Appeal Allowed: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and modified the conditions imposed by the Trial Court and the High Court.

Modified Directions:

(i) Period of Police Custody: Seven days from the date of production of the respondent-accused before the Magistrate pursuant to the judgment. Total period of police remand (including that granted by the courts below) shall not exceed fifteen days.

(ii) Unrestricted Access: The Investigating Officer shall have unrestricted access to the respondent-accused during the period of police custody for the purposes of interrogation.

(iii) Interrogation Location: The condition confining custodial interrogation exclusively to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, was set aside. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the respondent-accused at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT, or any other equivalent facility available with the police authorities at Vijayawada.

(iv) Videography: The requirement that custodial interrogation shall be conducted under CCTV coverage and/or videographic supervision was retained. However, this requirement stands satisfied by audio-visual recording of the actual sessions of interrogation and of any proceedings of discovery or recovery undertaken with the accused. It shall not be read as mandating uninterrupted videography of the transit of the accused between locations.

(v) Prohibition on Coercion: The Investigating Agency shall not subject the respondent-accused to any threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment or third-degree methods during the course of custodial interrogation, whether at the Central Prison or elsewhere.

(vi) Lawyer Presence: The direction permitting presence of the lawyer was retained with the modification that such lawyer shall only be allowed to remain present within the site of interrogation where he can see the respondent-accused. However, the lawyer shall not be permitted to intervene in the process of investigation at any cost.

(vii) Production of Recording: A copy of the CCTV footage and of the videographic recording in its original form (without deletion, overwriting, editing or tampering) shall be produced, together with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), before the learned Magistrate at Vijayawada upon the completion of the period of police custody.

(viii) Responsibility for Safety: The Investigating Officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT, and the Jail Superintendent/officer-in-charge of the facility where the accused is lodged during custody, shall be jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the safety, life and physical well-being of the respondent-accused throughout the period of police custody.

(ix) Impartial Investigation: The SIT shall conduct an impartial, fair and scientific investigation strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment or in the judgment of the High Court.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 38 BNSS

This judgment provides an authoritative interpretation of Section 38 of the BNSS, clarifying that the right to meet an advocate "during interrogation" does not mean the right to have the advocate present throughout the entirety of each interrogation session. This is a significant limitation on the rights of accused persons.

2. Establishes Reasonable Limits on Court-Imposed Conditions

The judgment establishes that courts cannot impose excessive, unworkable, or unrealistic conditions on police custody that render custodial interrogation ineffective. While constitutional safeguards must be protected, they cannot be used to frustrate the legitimate process of investigation.

3. Interprets the New BNSS Provisions on Police Custody

The judgment provides important guidance on Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS, recognizing that the legislative change was intended to allow police custody in parts during the first forty or sixty days, not just the first fifteen days. Courts must not foreclose this statutory window through non-extendable outer limits.

4. Balances Investigation Rights with Constitutional Safeguards

The judgment strikes a careful balance between the investigating agency's need for effective interrogation and the accused's constitutional protections. It upholds safeguards such as videography and lawyer presence but in a practical, workable manner.

5. Practical Guidance on Videography Requirements

The judgment provides practical guidance on videography requirements, distinguishing between the actual interrogation (which must be recorded) and transit movements (which need not be recorded). This avoids unrealistic expectations and prevents improper inferences.

6. Recognizes the Importance of Discoveries Under Section 23

The judgment recognizes the importance of discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly Section 27 of the Evidence Act) and the need for the investigating officer to take the accused to the actual place of discovery.

7. Rejects Bald and Unverified Apprehensions

The judgment establishes that courts should not impose restrictions based on bald and unverified apprehensions of the accused, especially where safety concerns can be addressed through designated secure facilities and official responsibility.

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Prosecution/State:

• Cite this judgment to oppose excessive, unworkable, or unrealistic conditions on police custody

• Argue that Section 38 BNSS does not mandate continuous lawyer presence throughout interrogation

• Rely on the judgment to justify interrogation at a location other than the prison where the accused is lodged

• Argue that videography requirements should be limited to actual interrogation sessions, not transit

• Rely on the judgment to oppose non-extendable outer limits on police custody that foreclose recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS

For Accused/Defence:

• Rely on the judgment to insist on constitutional safeguards during custodial interrogation

• Argue that videography of interrogation sessions is a salutary safeguard that must be retained

• Rely on the joint and several responsibility of officials for the accused's safety

• Argue that lawyer presence should be permitted to observe interrogation (though not to intervene)

• Rely on the constitutional protection against custodial violence, torture, and third-degree methods

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue the proper interpretation of Section 38 BNSS

• Rely on the judgment to argue that court-imposed conditions must be reasonable and workable

• Use the judgment to argue that constitutional safeguards are inherent, not court-created

• Rely on the distinction between recording interrogation sessions versus transit movements

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes, absolutely. This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India (2026 INSC 744) and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts

• Sessions Courts and Trial Courts

• Any authority exercising criminal jurisdiction

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Guidelines for Conditions on Police Custody

Courts imposing conditions on police custody must ensure they are:

• Reasonable: Not excessive or disproportionate

• Workable: Capable of practical implementation

• Proportionate: Not frustrating the purpose of custodial interrogation

• Protective: Safeguarding constitutional rights without undermining investigation

2. Interpretation of Section 38 BNSS

Lawyers and courts should note that Section 38 BNSS:

• Confers a right to meet an advocate during interrogation

• Does not confer a right to have the advocate present throughout the entire interrogation

• Does not permit the advocate to intervene in the investigation

3. Videography Requirements

The judgment establishes a clear distinction:

• Interrogation sessions: Must be videographed (salutary safeguard)

• Transit movements: Need not be continuously videographed (unworkable)

4. Location of Interrogation

Courts should not confine custodial interrogation to a distant location where:

• The offence was committed at a different location

• The dead body remains untraced

• Discoveries under Section 23 are imminent

• The efficacy of investigation depends on taking the accused to the actual place of discovery

5. The BNSS Framework on Police Custody

Under Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS:

• Police custody (aggregate not exceeding fifteen days) may be sought in parts

• It is available during the first forty or sixty days of total permissible detention

• It is not confined to the first fifteen days (unlike the CrPC)

6. Constitutional Safeguards are Inherent

Protection against custodial violence, torture, and third-degree methods is:

• Inherently provided in Article 21

• Not dependent on court orders

• The burden is on the investigating agency to ensure these safeguards

7. Burden on Investigating Agency

The investigating agency bears the burden of:

• Ensuring the safety, life, and physical well-being of the accused

• Not subjecting the accused to threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment, or third-degree methods

• Joint and several responsibility of officials

8. Judicial Restraint

Courts should not:

• Impose conditions based on bald and unverified apprehensions

• Travel beyond what the statutory provisions contemplate

• Frustrate the legitimate process of investigation