The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Police Custody & Interrogation Safeguards Under BNSS
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
18 September 2026
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The respondent, Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, was a Police Inspector at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, and was made an accused in Crime No. 107 of 2026 concerning the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna on 6 May 2026.
-
The deceased was allegedly apprehended by Task Force personnel at Markapur and subsequently brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station. According to the prosecution, he was not produced before a Magistrate and witnesses allegedly saw him at the police station with visible injuries.
-
The victim's mother subsequently approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition. A criminal case was registered alleging illegal detention, custodial torture resulting in death, and related offences. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, and the respondent was arrested.
-
The Magistrate granted eight days of police custody, but imposed extensive safeguards concerning the location of interrogation, advocate presence, CCTV coverage, continuous videography and the accused's safety.
-
The State challenged several of these conditions before the High Court and thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the restrictions imposed on police custody unduly interfered with the investigating agency's statutory authority to conduct an effective investigation.
-
Whether interrogation had to be confined exclusively to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
-
Whether continuous videography of the accused's entire transit between locations was legally and practically necessary.
-
What is the scope of an arrested person's right to have an advocate present during interrogation under Section 38 BNSS?
-
Whether the Magistrate or High Court could impose an absolute, non-extendable limit on police custody despite Section 187 BNSS.
-
How should the investigating agency's investigative powers be balanced against the accused's constitutional protection of life, dignity and freedom from coercion?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and modified the conditions governing police custody.
-
The Court held that confining the entire interrogation to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram was unworkable and unjustified in the circumstances. The Investigating Officer was permitted to interrogate the accused at the designated SIT interrogation centre or another equivalent secure police facility at Vijayawada.
-
The Court also clarified that audio-visual recording is required for the actual interrogation sessions and discovery/recovery proceedings, but it is not necessary to continuously record every minute of the accused's transit between locations.
-
On police custody, the Court explained that Sections 187(2) and 187(3) BNSS permit police custody, in aggregate up to 15 days, to be sought within the statutory detention window. Therefore, an absolute prohibition against extending custody beyond a particular date could not be sustained.
-
Regarding legal representation, the Court clarified that Section 38 BNSS gives the arrested person a right to meet an advocate during interrogation, but not a right to have the advocate continuously present throughout the entire interrogation.
Held
The Supreme Court held that:
-
Police custody must remain subject to constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 21.
-
The investigating agency must have reasonable freedom to conduct an effective investigation.
-
Interrogation need not be restricted to the Central Prison; it may take place at a designated SIT or secure police facility.
-
Actual interrogation and discovery/recovery proceedings must be audio-visually recorded.
-
Continuous recording of the accused's entire transit is not mandatory.
-
An advocate may be present within sight of the accused, but cannot interfere with or intervene in the interrogation.
-
Police custody may be granted in accordance with Section 187 BNSS, subject to the statutory aggregate limit.
-
The investigating officers and responsible prison/SIT officials remain jointly responsible for protecting the accused's life, safety and physical well-being.
-
The appeal was allowed in these terms.
Analysis
-
The judgment is significant because it attempts to maintain a balance between effective criminal investigation and constitutional protection of an accused in custody.
-
The Court recognised that an investigation into an alleged custodial death may require the accused to be taken to relevant locations for scene reconstruction, discovery and recovery of evidence. Restricting interrogation exclusively to a prison could therefore obstruct the investigation.
-
The Court did not treat investigative freedom as unrestricted. It emphasised that the accused's protection from coercion, physical assault, mental harassment and third-degree methods remains mandatory under constitutional safeguards.
-
The Court highlighted an important difference between the new BNSS regime and the earlier Section 167 CrPC framework. Under Sections 187(2) and 187(3) BNSS, police custody can be sought in parts within the specified initial detention window, subject to the overall statutory limit of 15 days. Thus, the Court rejected an inflexible judicial condition that would prematurely eliminate the statutory possibility of further police custody.
-
Section 38 BNSS does not create an unconditional right to have a lawyer physically present throughout every moment of interrogation. The Court interpreted the provision as guaranteeing the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, while permitting safeguards concerning the advocate's location and non-interference.
-
The Court accepted the value of recording interrogation because it protects both sides—an accused against allegations of coercion and investigators against unfounded allegations. However, it distinguished actual interrogation from logistical transit and found continuous recording of every movement impractical.
-
The judgment provides guidance on how courts should frame conditions attached to police remand under the BNSS: safeguards should protect constitutional rights without unnecessarily disabling legitimate investigative functions.