State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju – Criminal Appeal No.__ of 2026 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12344 of 2026 – 2026 INSC 744 – 27 July 2026 – Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/40501/40501_2026_2_1502_72784_Judgement_27-Jul-2026.pdf
Summary
The Court clarified balance between Article 21 safeguards and effective investigation during police custody under BNSS. Section 38 BNSS gives right to meet advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence. Interrogation cannot be confined to prison when recovery requires visit to places. Continuous videography of transit of 160 km is impracticable, but audio-visual recording of actual interrogation and recovery is salutary. Police custody may be granted in parts within 40/60-day window under Section 187 BNSS.
1) Appellant and impugned order challenged
State of Andhra Pradesh challenged judgment and final order dated 7 July 2026 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal Petition No. 5443 of 2026, which substantially retained stringent conditions imposed by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada dated 2 July 2026 in Crl.M.P. No. 1400 of 2026 granting 8 days police custody.
2) Factual matrix
Respondent, Police Inspector and SHO of Krishna Lanka Police Station, accused in custodial death matter of Gade Sai Krishna aged 25 who disappeared after being picked up on 6 May, allegedly beaten to death and body disposed at electric crematorium. FIR under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 BNS registered on complaint of mother on 19 June. SIT arrested respondent on 23 June. Magistrate granted police custody but subject to interrogation only inside Central Prison Rajamahendravaram, continuous videography and presence of advocate.
3) Lower courts verdicts
Magistrate: Granted 8 days police custody till 10 July but directed interrogation from 10 am to 5 pm only inside Central Prison Rajamahendravaram, in presence of lawyer, with continuous audio-video recording without interruption and preservation of CCTV footage. High Court: Modified order to allow custody from 09.07.2026 to 16.07.2026 and permitted taking accused to scene of offences for recovery and reconstruction, directed continuous videography of every movement from Central Prison to Vijayawada and back, but retained other restrictive conditions.
4) Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
State: Conditions imposed directly impinge on statutory right of investigating agency to conduct unhindered investigation, interrogation confined to prison defeats purpose as recovery of deceased body, CCTV hard disks requires visit to places, continuous videography of 3 hours transit each way over 160 km unworkable, continuous presence of advocate would obstruct interrogation. Respondent: Life at risk if interrogated at Vijayawada facility as persons arrested by him lodged there, safeguards needed against coercion and custodial violence under Article 21, right to legal assistance and videography mandatory.
Safeguards flowing from Article 21 must protect accused from coercion, torture and custodial violence but cannot be so restrictive as to render police custody ineffective. Section 38 BNSS gives arrested person right to meet advocate during interrogation, not right to continuous presence throughout interrogation. Audio-visual recording of actual interrogation and discovery/recovery proceedings is valid and salutary safeguard, but continuous videography of transit is impracticable. Section 187 BNSS permits police custody in parts within statutory 40/60 day window, courts should not prematurely foreclose that power by imposing absolute prohibition on further custody. Condition confining custodial interrogation exclusively to Central Prison set aside as unworkable [Paras 14-18 as per 2026 INSC 744].
Appeal allowed. Respondent granted further 7 days police custody subject to overall statutory limit under Section 187 BNSS. Investigating agency permitted to interrogate at SIT’s designated interrogation centre or equivalent secure facility, not confined to Central Prison Rajamahendravaram. Audio-visual recording of interrogation and recovery proceedings retained. Advocate allowed to remain within sight of interrogation where he can see accused but not permitted to intervene. Accused’s safety and dignity made joint responsibility of concerned officers including Jail Superintendent and SIT. SIT directed to conduct impartial, fair and scientific investigation strictly in accordance with law and submit videographic recordings in original form before jurisdictional Magistrate.
6. Who is affected and what changes
Affects investigating agencies, Magistrates and accused persons under new criminal laws BNSS/BNS. Clarifies new law allows police custody beyond first 15 days and in parts within 60/90 day window, unlike old CrPC 167. Balances Article 21 protection with legitimate investigation needs. For police, restores ability to interrogate outside prison for recovery; for accused, retains video safeguard of interrogation and limited lawyer access; for Magistrates, guidance not to impose absolute non-extendable outer limit on police custody prematurely.
7. Judgments cited / Acts and Sections
No Supreme Court judgments cited by name in the brief headnote you provided. As per full judgment 2026 INSC 744, Court discusses legislative change from CrPC Section 167 to BNSS Section 187.
Important paragraphs
Explaining who are all responsible for the ensuring safety and physical well-being of the accused throughout the period of police custody
20. At the outset, we are concerned solely with the narrow question of the legality and workability of the conditions imposed during police custody period as allowed by the learned Magistrate and modified by the High Court. 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. Moreover, the apprehension expressed by the respondent-accused regarding the threat to his life, limb and personal dignity has been taken care of by the High Court by commanding that the respondent-accused shall not be subjected to any threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault and third-degree methods during the course of custodial investigation. Needless to say, that 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 concerned authorities including the investigating officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT and the jail superintendent have been held jointly and severally responsible for ensuring safety and physical well-being of the accused throughout the period of police custody.
Police custody of 15 days may be utilised by the IO during the overall period of 60 or 90 days
22. 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.
24. 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, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained. Therefore, we are of the view that Conditions 28.1 to 28.3, 28.8 and 28.10, insofar as they permit the nomination of two advocates and regulate the manner and distance of the advocate’s presence so as to preclude interference with, or communication during, interrogation, are 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 conferring an unqualified entitlement to continuous presence, would travel beyond what Section 38 BNSS itself contemplates, and we clarify the position accordingly in the operative directions that follow.
Directions
27. Having regard to the foregoing, the terms and conditions imposed in the order of the learned Magistrate and the High Court are modified in the following terms: –
(i) The period of police custody shall commence from the date of production of the respondent-accused before the learned Magistrate pursuant to this judgment and shall remain in force for a period of seven (7) days therefrom. Thus, the total period of police remand including that granted by the Courts below would not exceed fifteen (15) days.
(ii) The Investigating Officer shall have unrestricted access to the respondent-accused during the period of police custody for the purposes of interrogation.
(iii) The condition confining custodial interrogation exclusively to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram is set aside as unworkable and unjustified. 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) The requirement that the process of custodial interrogation, wherever conducted, shall be conducted under CCTV coverage and/or videographic supervision is retained. It is, however, clarified that 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) 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) 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.
(vii) 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) 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) 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, such observations having been made solely for the disposal of the respective proceedings.
Acts and Sections involved:
– Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 38 – Right to meet advocate during interrogation, Section 187 – Police custody and detention, Section 528 – Inherent powers of High Court
– Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) – Murder, Section 127(4)(6) – Wrongful confinement, Section 238 – Causing disappearance of evidence
– Constitution of India – Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
