Case Note & Summary
The case pertained to a custodial death investigation where the respondent, a police inspector, was accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including custodial torture and causing disappearance of evidence. After the respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the prosecution sought twelve days police custody under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to trace the deceased, recover evidence, and confront the accused. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, granted eight days police custody subject to fifteen conditions, including the presence of an advocate during interrogation (positioned within sight but beyond hearing), mandatory continuous videography, and confinement of interrogation to the Central Prison premises. The State challenged these conditions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 528 BNSS, arguing they impinged upon the investigating agency’s autonomy. The High Court partly modified the order by allowing the accused to be taken to the scene of offence for reconstruction, directing videography of all movements, and retaining the remaining conditions. The State then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that the conditions tacitly presumed police misconduct, rendered the interrogation ineffective, and created unnecessary obstacles. Senior counsel Mr. Sidharth Luthra submitted that mandatory videography of the accused’s movements outside prison and the requirement to hold interrogation only inside the prison deprived the SIT of its designated facilities and frustrated the purpose of police remand. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard submissions; the judgment text as provided does not include the court’s final decision, leaving the issues unresolved.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Custody and Investigation - Validity of Conditions Imposed - Sections 187, 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The State of Andhra Pradesh preferred a special leave petition against the High Court’s order modifying but retaining conditions on police custody, including the presence of an advocate and mandatory continuous videography of the accused; the State contended that such conditions render the interrogation ineffective and usurp the investigating agency’s autonomy. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard arguments; the judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final holding (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate and modified by the High Court on police custody under Section 187 BNSS, such as mandatory continuous videography, presence of an advocate, and confinement to prison premises, are sustainable in law, and whether they unduly restrict the investigating agency's autonomy.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- police custody conditions
- unhindered investigation
- videography
- advocate presence
- Section 187 BNSS
- Section 528 BNSS
- custodial interrogation
- autonomy of investigating agency
- rights of accused
- constitutional safeguards
- non-interference with investigation
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (07) 22
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026
Citation not available, 2026 INSC 744
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by the State against the High Court's order modifying conditions of police custody granted to the respondent-accused, a police inspector, in a custodial death case.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the conditions imposed that restricted the police custody interrogation, including mandatory continuous videography of the accused's movements, presence of an advocate during interrogation, and confinement of interrogation to the prison premises.
Filing Reason
The State was aggrieved by the conditions that it believed rendered the police custody ineffective and impinged upon the investigating agency's statutory right to conduct unhindered interrogation.
Previous Decisions
1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, by order dated 2nd July 2026 in Crl.M.P. No. 1400 of 2026, granted eight days police custody of the respondent-accused with 15 conditions including advocate presence, continuous videography, and location within the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. 2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 7th July 2026 in Criminal Petition No. 5443 of 2026, partly modified the Magistrate's order: allowed taking the accused to the scene of offence for recovery and reconstruction, directed videography of all movements, and retained the remaining conditions.
Issues
Whether the conditions imposed on police custody, particularly mandatory continuous videography and presence of an advocate, impinge upon the investigating agency's autonomy and render the interrogation ineffective under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the High Court and Magistrate proceeded with a preconceived notion that the SIT would resort to third-degree methods, which was unwarranted.
The restrictions, including advocate presence and mandatory videography, made the interrogation ineffective and frustrated the purpose of police remand.
The direction to videograph every movement of the accused from the prison to Vijayawada and back impinged on the freedom of recovery and reconstruction of the crime scene.
Confining the interrogation to the prison premises deprived the investigating agency of using its own designated interrogation centre with scientific and technical facilities.
Once the High Court directed protection of the accused's life and dignity, no further conditions were necessary, and the retained conditions created unnecessary hurdles.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent-accused being an Inspector of Police is arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR in Crime No. 107 of 2026 lodged at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada relating to allegations of custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna on 6th May, 2026.
The respondent/accused shall be entitled to nominate two advocates... to be present at the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, during police custody... the advocate may observe the proceedings without being within hearing distance.
The Investigating Agency shall not subject the accused to any threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment or third-degree methods during the course of custodial interrogation.
The High Court disposed of the Criminal Petition by modifying the order... (vii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall conduct an impartial and scientific method of investigation to unravel the truth and uphold the integrity of ‘Satyameva Jayate’, the national motto of India.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel representing the appellant-State vehemently and fervently urged that the conditions imposed... tantamount to direct intervention in the statutory right of the investigating agency to conduct interrogation in a proper manner, and that the very purpose of the purported interrogation has been rendered nugatory by these conditions.
Procedural History
The deceased-victim was apprehended on 6th May 2026 and allegedly died in custody. On 2nd June 2026, the victim's mother filed a habeas corpus petition. On 17th June, the respondent-accused was suspended. On 19th June, the mother lodged a complaint leading to FIR Crime No. 107/2026. On 21st June, SIT was constituted. On 23rd June, the respondent was arrested, produced before Magistrate on 24th June, remanded to judicial custody. On 25th June, prosecution sought police custody under Section 187 BNSS. On 2nd July 2026, the Magistrate granted police custody with 15 conditions. State challenged those conditions in High Court under Section 528 BNSS. High Court modified conditions on 7th July 2026. State then appealed to Supreme Court by special leave. Supreme Court granted leave and heard submissions.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 187, Section 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 127(4), 127(6), 103(1), 238
