Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The case arises from the alleged custodial death of one-Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended by police personnel on May 6, 2026, and allegedly brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada. According to the prosecution, the victim was never produced before a Magistrate and subsequently went missing. His body remains untraced.

Following a complaint lodged by the victim's mother and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the respondent police officer was arrested on June 23, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution sought 12 days' police custody to facilitate further investigation.

While granting police custody, the Magistrate imposed 15 stringent conditions, including confining interrogation to the Central Prison, requiring continuous videography, permitting advocate presence during interrogation, and prescribing a non-extendable outer limit on police custody. The Andhra Pradesh High Court retained most of these safeguards with minor modifications. Police custody was allowed only for eight days.

The State challenged these conditions before the Supreme Court, contending that they seriously hampered the investigation.

The judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta acceded to the Appellant-State apprehension that the conditions imposed would create a hurdle in a custodial investigation of the Respondent.

“We feel that 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 Court said.

Addressing the condition restricting the period of custodial interrogation, the Court held that it was contrary to the mandate of Section 187(2) of the BNSS. The Court observed that, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the new provision allows the investigating agency to seek the 15-day police custody in parts within the prescribed statutory period. This legislative change, the Court said, is intended to ensure that investigators can effectively seek custodial interrogation if fresh facts, discoveries, or disclosure statements leading to incriminating evidence emerge during the course of the investigation.

Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed that the alleged offence had occurred nearly 160 kilometres away from the place where the accused was in custody. The Court noted that the investigation could yield fresh leads, discoveries and recoveries based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, making further custodial interrogation necessary to effectively carry the investigation forward.

“…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.”, the Court observed.

“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.”, the Court held.

The Court also set aside the other condition mandating the presence of advocate throughout the interrogation, noting that it was against Section 38 of the BNSS. The condition restricting the interrogation only at Central Prison was modified as unworkable, and the SIT was given liberty to interrogate him at any designated police facility of choice. However, the Court retained the condition for videography of the interrogation, though it clarified that it need not be uniterrupted videography covering the transit of the accused. The SIT was also directed to ensure the safety and physical well-being of the accused during the custody period.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

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.