State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju
“Police Custody in a Custodial Death Case: Safeguards Stay, But Not at the Cost of an Effective Interrogation”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court allowed the State of Andhra Pradesh's appeal and modified the conditions that a Magistrate and the High Court had attached to the police custody of an Inspector of Police accused in a custodial death case (Crime No. 107 of 2026, Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada). The Court set aside the condition confining interrogation to the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram, which is about 160 kilometres from Vijayawada, and the absolute bar on extending custody beyond a fixed date. It held that Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS allows police custody, up to fifteen days in aggregate, in parts. It retained audio-visual recording of the actual interrogation sessions and discovery proceedings, but not of the entire transit of the accused. The advocate's presence was kept, but only within sight of the accused and without intervening. Seven days of police custody were granted, to count towards the fifteen-day limit, with the SIT and jail officials jointly and severally responsible for the accused's safety.
The Bottom Line
The Court balanced two concerns. A police officer accused of a custodial death must not be mistreated in custody, and his interrogation must be recorded. But the investigating team also has to be able to question him effectively, take him to places where the body or evidence may be recovered, and use the full custody window the new criminal procedure law allows. The Supreme Court kept the safeguards that protect the accused, removed the conditions that made the interrogation unworkable, and granted seven days of fresh police custody.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Alleged Custodial Death of Gade Sai Krishna
The deceased was apprehended at Markapur by Task Force personnel, brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station at about 7:00 a.m. and entrusted to the respondent Inspector. The prosecution alleges he was never produced before a Magistrate.
Alleged Custodial Death of Gade Sai Krishna
The deceased was apprehended at Markapur by Task Force personnel, brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station at about 7:00 a.m. and entrusted to the respondent Inspector. The prosecution alleges he was never produced before a Magistrate.
Habeas Corpus Petition Filed
The deceased's mother moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026). The respondent allegedly suppressed the fact that the deceased had been apprehended and kept in police custody.
Habeas Corpus Petition Filed
The deceased's mother moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026). The respondent allegedly suppressed the fact that the deceased had been apprehended and kept in police custody.
Complaint and FIR
The mother complained to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and Crime No. 107 of 2026 was registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 of the BNS.
Complaint and FIR
The mother complained to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and Crime No. 107 of 2026 was registered at Krishna Lanka Police Station under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 of the BNS.
Arrest by SIT
The Special Investigation Team, constituted on 21 June 2026, arrested the respondent. He was produced before the Magistrate on 24 June 2026 and remanded to judicial custody.
Arrest by SIT
The Special Investigation Team, constituted on 21 June 2026, arrested the respondent. He was produced before the Magistrate on 24 June 2026 and remanded to judicial custody.
Police Remand Sought Under Section 187 BNSS
The prosecution filed a memo seeking twelve days of police remand to trace the fate of the deceased, recover evidence and reconstruct the crime scene.
Police Remand Sought Under Section 187 BNSS
The prosecution filed a memo seeking twelve days of police remand to trace the fate of the deceased, recover evidence and reconstruct the crime scene.
Magistrate Grants Conditional Police Custody
The Magistrate granted eight days of police custody within Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, subject to fifteen conditions.
Magistrate Grants Conditional Police Custody
The Magistrate granted eight days of police custody within Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, subject to fifteen conditions.
High Court Modifies the Order
The High Court partly allowed the State's petition, resetting the custody period to 9-16 July 2026 and permitting site visits, but retained most conditions and required videography of the accused's movements.
High Court Modifies the Order
The High Court partly allowed the State's petition, resetting the custody period to 9-16 July 2026 and permitting site visits, but retained most conditions and required videography of the accused's movements.
Supreme Court Allows the State's Appeal
The Supreme Court modified the conditions, granted seven days of police custody from production before the Magistrate, and directed the safeguards to remain in force.
Supreme Court Allows the State's Appeal
The Supreme Court modified the conditions, granted seven days of police custody from production before the Magistrate, and directed the safeguards to remain in force.
The Story
The respondent, Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, an Inspector of Police, is an accused in FIR Crime No. 107 of 2026 at Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, relating to the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna on 6 May 2026. According to the prosecution, the deceased was apprehended at Markapur at about 3:00 a.m. on 6 May 2026 by Task Force personnel, was brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station at about 7:00 a.m., and was entrusted along with his mobile phone to the respondent. He was never produced before a Magistrate, and several witnesses allegedly saw him in the police station with visible injuries.
The deceased's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 15132 of 2026) on 2 June 2026. The respondent, as the concerned Inspector, allegedly suppressed the fact that the deceased had been apprehended and kept in police custody. He was suspended on 17 June 2026. On 19 June 2026, the mother complained to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, alleging illegal detention, custodial torture resulting in death, and disappearance of the body, and Crime No. 107 of 2026 was registered under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A preliminary examination of the DVRs seized from the police station found no CCTV footage for the crucial period.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 21 June 2026. It arrested the respondent on 23 June 2026, and he was remanded to judicial custody the next day and lodged at the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. On 25 June 2026, the prosecution sought twelve days of police remand under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to trace the fate of the deceased, identify co-accused, recover material evidence, confront the respondent with falsified official records and reconstruct the crime scene.
By order dated 2 July 2026, the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, granted eight days of police custody (3 to 10 July 2026) to be conducted within the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, on fifteen conditions. These included the presence of two nominated advocates (one at a time) within the line of sight but at least ten feet away or behind a glass partition, continuous videography of the entire custody period, preservation of CCTV footage, joint and several responsibility of the SIT and jail officials for the accused's safety, and an absolute bar on extending custody beyond 10 July 2026.
The State challenged certain conditions (28.1, 28.4, 28.5, 28.10, 28.13, 28.14 and 28.15) under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. By judgment dated 7 July 2026 in Criminal Petition No. 5443 of 2026, the High Court shifted the custody period to 9 to 16 July 2026, allowed the SIT to take the accused to the scene of offence for recovery and reconstruction on facts revealed by him, directed videography of every movement between Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada, and left the other conditions intact. The State appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The conditions impinge on the investigating agency's statutory autonomy
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the State, argued that the conditions amounted to direct intervention in the statutory right of the investigating agency to interrogate in a proper manner and rendered interrogation nugatory. He submitted that the lower courts proceeded on a pre-conceived notion that the SIT would use third-degree methods.
Interrogation cannot be confined to Rajamahendravaram or recorded in transit
The State urged that the direction to videograph every movement between Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada impinged on the freedom to reconstruct the crime scene and pursue disclosures that could lead to recovery of the dead body, and that the investigating agency should be free to use its own designated interrogation centre with scientific and technical facilities.
Direction (v) already protects the accused
Once the High Court had directed the SIT to take all positive steps to protect the life, limb and personal dignity of the accused, no further conditions were needed, and the remaining conditions created unnecessary hurdles. The State asked that the SIT be given unfettered custody, subject only to constitutional safeguards.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Risk to the accused's life if lodged in Vijayawada
Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the accused, urged that the respondent, during his service, had arrested many criminals now lodged in the prison at Vijayawada, so taking him there would put his life at risk.
The other conditions only reiterate constitutional protections
The respondent submitted that the remaining restrictions imposed by the Magistrate and the High Court were in line with this Court's decisions and merely reiterated the protections every accused is entitled to, so the appeal should be dismissed.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court confined itself to the narrow question of the legality and workability of the conditions on police custody. It accepted that the High Court had taken care of the accused's apprehension about threat to life, limb and dignity, and observed that the burden was on the SIT to ensure these safeguards irrespective of the orders, as they are inherent in Article 21. It then held that confining all interrogation to Rajamahendravaram was unsustainable, given the facts about where the offence occurred, the missing body, the unrecovered CCTV hard disks and the prospect of discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act). It next examined the BNSS scheme, concluding that Section 187(2) and (3) widened the window for police custody and that an absolute outer limit contradicted that purpose. On Section 38 BNSS, it read the right as one to meet an advocate during interrogation, not to continuous presence throughout, while approving the conditions regulating the advocate's presence. On videography, it kept the safeguard but limited it to actual interrogation sessions and discovery proceedings. It addressed the security concern by requiring that interrogation outside the prison be at the SIT's designated centre or an equivalent secure facility under police or SIT control, with joint and several responsibility of named officers.
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.
Para 20
Makes clear that protection from threat, coercion and third-degree methods in custody flows from Article 21 itself and does not depend on court-imposed conditions.
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
Para 24
Gives an authoritative reading of Section 38 BNSS as a right to meet, not a right to be present throughout.
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
Para 25
Defines the core of the recording requirement and excludes inflexible recording of transit.
We find no material on record, beyond the bald and unverified apprehension, to suggest that the designated interrogation centre would be unsafe or inadequate for this purpose.
Para 26
Shows that an accused's generalised safety apprehension, without material, will not displace the investigating agency's choice of a secure facility.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The State's challenge succeeded in part: the SIT obtained seven days of police custody with freedom to interrogate at its designated centre in Vijayawada and to take the accused for discovery and recovery, while the core safeguards of recording, limited lawyer presence, protection from coercion and officer accountability remained.
Directions Issued
- Police custody to commence from the date of production of the respondent before the Magistrate pursuant to this judgment and remain for seven days, so that total police remand, including that granted by the courts below, does not exceed fifteen days
- The Investigating Officer to have unrestricted access to the accused during police custody for interrogation
- The condition confining interrogation to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram set aside; interrogation may be at the SIT's designated centre or an equivalent facility available with the police at Vijayawada
- CCTV coverage or videographic supervision of the custodial interrogation retained, satisfied by audio-visual recording of the actual interrogation sessions and any discovery or recovery proceedings, and not requiring uninterrupted videography of transit
- No threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment or third-degree methods during interrogation, whether at the Central Prison or elsewhere
- The lawyer may remain present within the site of interrogation where he can see the accused, but shall not intervene in the investigation at any cost
- An original, unedited copy of the CCTV footage and videographic recording to be produced before the Magistrate at Vijayawada after custody, with a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- The Investigating Officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, SIT members and the Jail Superintendent or officer in charge of the facility jointly and severally responsible for the accused's safety, life and physical well-being during custody
- The SIT to conduct an impartial, fair and scientific investigation in accordance with law, uninfluenced by observations in this or the High Court's judgment
Key Legal Principles Established
Safeguards against custodial coercion, such as protection of life, limb and dignity of an accused, are inherent in Article 21 and the investigating agency bears the burden of ensuring them irrespective of any court order.
Under Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS, police custody of up to fifteen days in aggregate may be obtained in parts during the first forty or sixty days of detention, and courts should not rigidly or prematurely foreclose that window.
Section 38 BNSS grants the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
Audio-visual recording of custodial interrogation is a salutary safeguard for both the accused and the investigating agency, but the requirement extends to the interrogation and discovery proceedings, not an uninterrupted recording of transit.
Conditions on police custody must be workable and must not defeat the purpose of custody, especially where discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are anticipated.
A generalised apprehension of risk to an accused's life can be met by requiring interrogation at a secure facility under police control and fixing responsibility on named officers.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Even a police officer accused of a custodial death is protected from threats, coercion and third-degree methods during police custody, and officers are personally responsible for his safety.
- Interrogation in custody must be audio-visually recorded, and the recording must be preserved unedited and given to the Magistrate.
- A person arrested and interrogated has the right to meet a lawyer during interrogation, but the lawyer cannot take part in or interfere with the questioning.
- Under the new criminal procedure law (BNSS), police can seek custody in parts within the first forty or sixty days, up to fifteen days in total.
- The Court did not decide guilt; its observations were made only to decide how custody should be conducted.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The Court held that protection against threat, coercion, physical assault and third-degree methods during custodial interrogation is inherent in Article 21.
Statutory Provisions
Section 187(2) and (3)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
“Governs detention of an arrested person and police custody during investigation, permitting police custody not exceeding fifteen days in aggregate, available in parts during the first forty or sixty days of detention.”
Relevance: Central to the Court's refusal to sustain an absolute bar on extending police custody.
Section 38
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
“Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.”
Relevance: The Court read the right as one to meet an advocate, not to have an advocate continuously present, and modified the conditions accordingly.
Section 528
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
“Saving of the inherent powers of the High Court.”
Relevance: The State invoked this provision before the High Court to challenge the conditions imposed by the Magistrate.
Sections 23 and 63
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
“Section 23 deals with discovery of facts pursuant to information received from an accused (corresponding to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872); Section 63 deals with admissibility of electronic records and the accompanying certificate (corresponding to Section 65B).”
Relevance: The anticipated discoveries justified allowing the accused to be taken to the place of discovery, and the certificate requirement applies to the CCTV and videographic recordings.
Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1) and 238
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
“Offences relating to wrongful confinement, murder and causing disappearance of evidence, as invoked in the FIR.”
Relevance: These are the provisions under which Crime No. 107 of 2026 was registered against the respondent.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju - Hindi Explanation
English
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.