Courts Can’t Place Absolute Non-Extendable Outer Limit On Police Custody: Supreme Court Explains Legislative Change U/S 187(2) BNSS

The appeal by special leave was preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “The statutory scheme under the BNSS must also be borne in mind. Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone. 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, and an unduly rigid or premature foreclosure of that statutory window, whether by a Magistrate or by a court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, would run counter to the object of the provision. We are, therefore, unable to sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal.”

Factual Background

The respondent-accused, being an Inspector of Police, was arraigned as an accused in connection with an FIR relating to allegations of custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna on May 6, 2026. The deceased-victim was apprehended at Markapur by the Task Force personnel. He was brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station the same day and was formally handed over to the sentry, after which, along with his mobile phone, he came to be entrusted to the respondent-accused. As per the prosecution, the deceased-victim was never produced before the Magistrate, and many witnesses saw him in the police station with visible injuries. The mother of the deceased-victim had moved a Habeas Corpus petition. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent-accused, being the concerned Police Inspector, suppressed the fact that the deceased-victim had been apprehended and kept in police custody.

The respondent-accused was placed under suspension, and the mother of the deceased victim thereafter lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada alleging illegal detention, custodial torture resulting in death, and disappearance of the body to screen the offenders and destroy evidence. A case was registered under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The preliminary examination of the DVRs seized from Krishna Lanka Police Station revealed that no CCTV footage was available for the crucial period during which the deceased-victim was stated to be in custody.

The accused was granted police custody for a period of eight days on certain conditions. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-State preferred a Criminal Petition before the High Court on the ground that confining the entire custodial interrogation to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, and mandating an omnibus regime of continuous videography impinged upon the autonomy of the investigating agency and rendered the very object of police custody illusory. When certain conditions were modified, the State approached the Apex Court questioning the same, which, as per the State, directly impinged upon the rights of the Investigating Officer to conduct an unhindered investigation.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the offence of custodial death in which the respondent-accused was arraigned was alleged to have been committed at, and in the vicinity of, Krishna Lanka Police Station and the dead body of the deceased-victim remained untraced. It was noticed that the original hard disks of the CCTV system were yet to be recovered and it was the case of the prosecution that discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (erstwhile Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) were imminent if the respondent-accused was properly interrogated.

“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”, the Bench held while also adding, “We are, therefore, unable to sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal.”

Dealing with the aspect of videography and CCTV documentation, the Bench concurred with the High Court that such safeguards are salutary and ought ordinarily to be retained so as to protect both the accused, against any allegation of coercion, and the investigating agency, against any unfounded allegation of impropriety. “However, the direction that every movement of the accused, including transit of about three hours each way over a distance of approximately 160 kilometers between the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada, must be continuously videographed without interruption, is, in our view, unworkable in practice”, it added.

Considering the apprehension voiced on behalf of the respondent-accused that his life would be at risk if lodged for interrogation at a facility in Vijayawada on account of his having effected the arrest of persons presently confined there, the Bench held that this apprehension could be adequately addressed by requiring that interrogation outside the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram be conducted at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT or an equivalent secure facility under police or SIT control.

The Bench thus allowed the appeal by modifying certain conditions imposed in the order of the Magistrate and the High Court. The Bench also ordered that the Investigating Officer would have unrestricted access to the respondent-accused during the period of police custody for the purposes of interrogation. “The condition confining custodial interrogation exclusively to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram is set aside as unworkable and unjustified”, it held while also ordering, “The direction given by the learned Magistrate permitting presence of the lawyer is 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.”

The Bench concluded the matter by ordering the SIT to conduct an impartial, fair and scientific investigation strictly in accordance with law.

Cause Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 744)

Click here to read/download Judgment