4.

The respondent-accused being an Inspector of Police is arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR in Crime No. 107 of 2026 lodged at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada relating to allegations of custodial death of one Gade Sai Krishna on 6th May, 2026.

5.

The deceased-victim was apprehended at Markapur at about 3:00 a.m. on 6th May, 2026 by the Task Force personnel. At about 7:00 a.m. the same day, he was brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station and formally handed over to the sentry, whereafter 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 learned Magistrate, and many witnesses saw him in the police station with visible injuries.

6.

The mother of the deceased-victim moved a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh bearing Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026 on 2nd June, 2026. During the course of the proceedings of the said petition, the respondent-accused being the concerned Police Inspector suppressed the fact that the deceased-victim had been apprehended and kept in police custody. On 17th June, 2026, the respondent-accused was placed under suspension. On 19th June, 2026, the mother of the deceased-victim 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. On the strength of the said complaint, Crime No. 107 of 2026 came to be registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station for offences under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

7.

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.

8.

On 21st June, 2026, the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate Crime No. 107 of 2026. The respondent-accused was arrested by the SIT on 23rd June, 2026 and was produced before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada on 24th June, 2026, whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody and consequently lodged at the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

9.

On 25th June, 2026, the prosecution filed a memo under Section 187 of the BNSS before the learned Magistrate seeking twelve days police remand of the respondent-accused, citing the imperative need to trace the fate of the deceased-victim, identify co-accused persons, recover material evidence, confront the respondent-accused with falsified official records and for reconstruction of crime scene.

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.

25.

On the question of videography and CCTV documentation, we are in agreement with the High Court that such safeguards are salutary and 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. Interruptions on account of movement, signal loss, battery and storage, limitations of recording equipment, or security considerations during transit are inherent contingencies of road travel, and it would be unrealistic, and self-defeating of the safeguard itself, to visit the investigating agency with the consequence of an inference of impropriety merely because of such an interruption. What the safeguard requires is that the interrogation itself, that is, the actual questioning of, or interaction with, the respondent-accused be continuously and contemporaneously recorded; the requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, which is a totally logistical exercise.

📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!

Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.

✅ Check Free Study Material

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: –

Explore More Free Resources from Delhi Law Academy

Stay updated with our monthly current affairs and explore more important legal and judicial-service articles from Delhi Law Academy.