Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on Police Custody in Andhra Custodial Death Case; Says Investigation Cannot Be Rendered Illusory

In a significant ruling balancing the rights of an accused with the needs of an effective criminal investigation, the Supreme Court has held that courts cannot impose conditions on police custody that make custodial interrogation ineffective or "illusory." Setting aside several restrictive conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the trial court, the Court ruled that while constitutional safeguards must be protected, the investigating agency must also be allowed to conduct a meaningful investigation.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026 INSC 744).

Background

The case arises out of the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended by police on May 6, 2026 and allegedly remained in police custody without being produced before a Magistrate. According to the prosecution, several witnesses saw him in Krishna Lanka Police Station with visible injuries, after which he allegedly disappeared.

Following a complaint by the victim's mother, an FIR was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences including custodial death and destruction of evidence. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the Andhra Pradesh Government to investigate the case.

The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was arrested by the SIT, and the Magistrate granted eight days' police custody but imposed numerous conditions, including:

• Interrogation only inside Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram;
• Continuous videography of the entire police custody;
• Presence of the accused's advocate during interrogation;
• Daily reports by jail authorities;
• Preservation of CCTV footage; and
• A direction that police custody could not be extended beyond July 10, 2026.

The High Court partly modified these conditions but substantially retained them, leading the State to approach the Supreme Court.

Investigation Cannot Be Reduced to a Formality

Allowing the State's appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the concerns expressed by the investigating agency were genuine.

The Court held that confining the entire interrogation to the prison was "neither justified nor sustainable."

It noted that the alleged custodial death occurred in and around Krishna Lanka Police Station, the victim's body was still untraced, the original CCTV hard disks had not been recovered, and important discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 could still be made.

The Bench observed that the investigating officer must have the freedom to take the accused to relevant locations for recovery of evidence and reconstruction of the crime scene.

"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 kilometres."

Significant Interpretation of Section 187 BNSS

The Supreme Court also interpreted Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which permits police custody in parts within the first 40 or 60 days of detention.

The Court observed that unlike the old Section 167 CrPC, the new provision intentionally expands the window during which police custody can be sought.

Accordingly, it struck down the Magistrate's direction absolutely prohibiting extension of police custody beyond a fixed date.

According to the Court, such a restriction defeats the legislative intent behind Section 187 BNSS.

Right to Lawyer During Interrogation Not Unlimited

Interpreting Section 38 BNSS, the Court clarified that an arrested person has the right to meet an advocate during interrogation but not to have the advocate remain continuously present throughout the interrogation.

The Bench held that while the advocate may remain within sight of the interrogation so that the accused is protected against coercion, the lawyer cannot interfere with or participate in the questioning.

The Court clarified that Section 38 does not confer an unrestricted right to continuous physical presence during interrogation.

Videography Must Cover Interrogation, Not Entire Journey

The Court upheld videography and CCTV recording as important safeguards protecting both the accused and the investigating agency.

However, it held that requiring uninterrupted videography of every movement of the accused—including a three-hour road journey between Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada—was impractical and unworkable.

The Bench observed that interruptions during transit due to logistics, security concerns, battery limitations or signal loss are inevitable.

Accordingly, it clarified that the requirement would be satisfied if:

• Actual interrogation sessions are audio-visually recorded; and
• Discovery and recovery proceedings involving the accused are videographed.

Continuous recording of transit was held unnecessary.

Constitutional Safeguards Continue to Apply

The Court emphasised that irrespective of any judicial directions, Article 21 of the Constitution inherently protects every accused against:

• Threats;
• Physical assault;
• Coercion;
• Mental harassment; and
• Third-degree methods.

The Court directed that the Investigating Officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, SIT members and the officer in charge of the detention facility would remain jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the accused's safety throughout police custody.

Supreme Court's Directions

The Court modified the custody conditions and directed that:

• The respondent shall remain in police custody for seven days from production before the Magistrate, ensuring the total police custody does not exceed 15 days.
• The SIT shall have unrestricted access to interrogate the accused.
• Interrogation may be conducted at the SIT's designated interrogation centre or another secure police facility.
• Interrogation and recovery proceedings shall be videographed.
• Continuous recording of transit is not mandatory.
• The accused's lawyer may remain within sight but cannot interfere with the investigation.
• Original CCTV footage and recordings shall be produced before the Magistrate along with the certificate required under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• The SIT shall conduct a fair, impartial and scientific investigation uninfluenced by observations made by the courts.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and modified the orders of the Magistrate and the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
Citation: 2026 INSC 744

Representation:-

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Suhail Ahmed, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. L Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. C Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Bharat J Joshi, Adv. Mr. G. Arun, Adv