Safeguards in Police Custody Must Not Make Investigation Illusory: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 187 and Section 38 BNSS

Introduction

In THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU, the Supreme Court examined the legality and practicality of conditions imposed while granting police custody of a police inspector accused in a custodial death case.

The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was accused in connection with the alleged illegal detention, custodial torture, death, and disappearance of the body of one Gade Sai Krishna. The prosecution sought police custody to trace the deceased, recover evidence, identify co-accused persons, reconstruct the crime scene, and confront the accused with allegedly falsified records.

The Magistrate granted police custody but imposed several stringent conditions, including interrogation only within Central Prison, continuous videography, advocate presence, and a non-extendable custody limit. The High Court substantially retained those safeguards. The State appealed, arguing that the conditions made custodial interrogation practically ineffective.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court partly accepted the State’s objections and modified the custody conditions. It held that while constitutional safeguards against coercion, torture, and abuse must be strictly preserved, conditions imposed by courts cannot be so rigid or impractical that they defeat the statutory purpose of police custody.

The Court permitted the Investigating Officer to interrogate the respondent at the designated SIT interrogation centre or another secure police facility at Vijayawada, instead of confining interrogation exclusively to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

The Court retained important safeguards: interrogation must be audio-visually recorded, the accused must not be subjected to coercion or third-degree methods, a lawyer may remain within sight but cannot interfere, and officers would remain jointly and severally responsible for the accused’s safety.

The Supreme Court also clarified that continuous videography is required for actual interrogation sessions and discovery or recovery proceedings, but not for every minute of transit between locations. It further held that an absolute non-extendable limit imposed by the Magistrate was inconsistent with the statutory scheme of Section 187 BNSS.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite any earlier judicial precedent by case title. Therefore, there are no cited case precedents to analyse by name.

Instead, the Court’s reasoning is primarily based on statutory interpretation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and constitutional protections under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning rests on a balance between two competing legal concerns: the need for effective investigation and the need to protect the accused from custodial abuse.

1. Police custody cannot be rendered ineffective

The Court found that confining interrogation entirely to Central Prison was unjustified. The alleged offence occurred in and around Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada; the body of the deceased had not been traced; CCTV hard disks were yet to be recovered; and discoveries under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 were considered likely.

The Court held that if the accused had to be questioned about recoveries or taken to relevant locations, interrogation from a prison about 160 kilometres away would make the process impractical.

2. Section 187 BNSS permits police custody in parts

A key clarification concerns Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS. The Court contrasted it with the earlier Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the BNSS, police custody up to an aggregate of fifteen days may be sought in parts during the first forty or sixty days of detention, depending on the case.

Therefore, a court cannot impose an absolute non-extendable outer limit that prematurely closes the statutory window, especially where fresh leads or discoveries may emerge.

3. Right to meet an advocate is not a right to continuous presence

Section 38 BNSS gives an arrested person the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, “though not throughout interrogation.” The Supreme Court clarified that this does not mean an advocate can remain continuously present throughout every interrogation session.

The lawyer may remain within sight of the accused, but cannot hear, advise, prompt, consult, communicate with, or interfere in the interrogation.

4. Videography is a safeguard, but it must be workable

The Court approved the use of CCTV and audio-visual recording as a safeguard protecting both sides: the accused from coercion and the investigating agency from false allegations.

However, it held that recording every movement during road transit was impractical. Signal loss, battery issues, security constraints, and equipment limitations may interrupt recording. Hence, the mandatory recording requirement applies to interrogation sessions and discovery or recovery proceedings, not every minute of travel.

5. Article 21 safeguards remain paramount

The Court emphasised that the SIT and prison authorities must protect the accused’s life, limb, dignity, and physical well-being. The investigating agency was expressly prohibited from using threats, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment, or third-degree methods.

Impact of the Judgment

This decision is significant for investigations under the BNSS. It clarifies that judicial safeguards during police custody are permissible and often necessary, but they must be practical and must not destroy the very purpose of custodial interrogation.

The judgment will likely guide Magistrates and High Courts in framing custody conditions. Courts may impose video-recording, lawyer-visibility, and safety safeguards, but should avoid blanket restrictions such as interrogation only in prison or continuous recording of transit.

It also gives important guidance on the new BNSS framework by recognising that police custody can be sought in parts within the broader statutory window, subject to the aggregate limit of fifteen days.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Police custody

Police custody means the accused is placed under the control of the investigating agency for interrogation and investigation-related steps. It is different from judicial custody, where the accused is kept in jail under court authority.

Section 187 BNSS

This provision governs remand and police custody. The Supreme Court clarified that under the BNSS, police custody up to fifteen days in total can be granted in parts during the permitted statutory period.

Section 38 BNSS

This gives an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, but not to have the advocate continuously participate in or monitor the entire interrogation.

Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

This corresponds to the old Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It allows certain information given by an accused in custody to be used if it leads to discovery of a fact, such as recovery of a body, weapon, document, or other material evidence.

Section 63 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

This corresponds to the old Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and deals with certification of electronic records, such as CCTV footage or videographic recordings, so that they may be relied upon in legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court laid down an important rule of balance: custodial interrogation must be subject to constitutional safeguards, but those safeguards cannot be so burdensome that they make lawful investigation impossible.

The judgment clarifies the scope of police custody under Section 187 BNSS, limits the meaning of advocate access under Section 38 BNSS, and gives practical guidance on videography of interrogation. Its broader significance lies in harmonising effective criminal investigation with the accused’s right to dignity, safety, and fair treatment under Article 21.