The Supreme Court has ruled that while courts can impose safeguards to protect the rights of an accused during police custody, such conditions cannot be so restrictive that they make investigation ineffective. In a judgment delivered on July 27, 2026, the Court modified several conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a Magistrate regarding the police custody of a suspended police inspector accused in a custodial death case.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that investigators must be allowed to carry out meaningful custodial interrogation while fully respecting the constitutional rights of the accused.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning police custody granted to Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, an Inspector of Police facing investigation in connection with the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was taken into police custody on May 6, 2026, and was allegedly seen at the police station with visible injuries before he went missing. The victim's mother later filed a complaint alleging illegal detention, custodial torture, disappearance of the body and destruction of evidence, leading to registration of an FIR and formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The Magistrate granted eight days' police custody but attached several conditions, including continuous videography, interrogation inside the prison, and the presence of the accused's lawyer during interrogation. The High Court retained most of these safeguards with minor modifications, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the investigating agency's concern about the restrictive conditions was justified because effective custodial interrogation could be seriously affected.
"The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency regarding the hurdles created in effective custodial investigation... is realistic and justified," the Bench observed.
The Court noted that the accused's rights against coercion, physical assault and third-degree methods were already protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and those safeguards would continue irrespective of the modified conditions.
The Bench found that restricting the entire interrogation to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram was impractical. It pointed out that the alleged offence occurred in Vijayawada, the victim's body had not yet been traced, CCTV hard disks were still to be recovered, and investigators might need to take the accused to places connected with possible discoveries during the investigation.
Lawyer's Presence During Interrogation
The Court also interpreted Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which gives an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation.
The Bench clarified that the provision does not grant a right to have a lawyer continuously present throughout every moment of interrogation.
"The right guaranteed... is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not... contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session," the Court observed.
Videography Safeguards Retained
The Supreme Court agreed that videography remains an important safeguard for both the accused and the investigating agency.
However, it held that requiring uninterrupted recording of every movement of the accused, including long-distance travel between prison and investigation locations, was unrealistic and unworkable.
Instead, the Court ruled that the actual interrogation sessions and any recovery proceedings involving the accused must be audio-visually recorded, while continuous recording during transit is not mandatory.
Court's Decision
Allowing the State's appeal, the Supreme Court modified the conditions governing police custody.
The Court granted the investigating officer unrestricted access to question the accused during the permissible police custody period, allowed interrogation at the SIT's designated interrogation centre or another secure police facility instead of restricting it to prison, retained CCTV and videography safeguards for interrogation sessions, permitted the lawyer to remain only within sight of the accused without interfering in the investigation, and directed that all recordings be preserved and produced before the Magistrate with the required legal certification.
It also reiterated that the SIT and prison authorities would remain jointly responsible for ensuring the accused's safety throughout police custody and directed that the investigation be conducted fairly, scientifically and strictly in accordance with law.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: July 27, 2026
