Introduction
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026) is significant for India’s criminal-justice system because it clarifies the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Court held that police custody is not restricted to the first 15 days of remand. However, the maximum aggregate police custody remains capped at 15 days.
The Court clarified that:
1. A maximum of 15 days of police custody in aggregate can be granted in parts during the initial 40 days or 60 days of the permissible detention period, depending upon whether the case falls within the 60-day or 90-day statutory framework.
2. Courts cannot impose an absolute, non-extendable deadline that prevents investigators from seeking the remaining permissible police custody when fresh facts, discoveries or investigative leads emerge.
3. The judgment does not authorise 40 or 60 days of police custody. The aggregate police custody remains limited to 15 days.
4. Therefore, the BNSS expands the window within which police custody can be utilised, but not its maximum duration.
For example, an accused who is initially given 8 days of police custody may, subject to judicial satisfaction and statutory limits, be given the remaining 7 days later if a fresh investigative lead emerges.
The judgment therefore seeks to balance investigative effectiveness with constitutional protection of personal liberty.
BNSS vs CrPC: Wider Window, Same 15-Day Ceiling
Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 167 restricted police custody to 15 days in the whole. After this period, further detention could ordinarily be in judicial custody, subject to statutory limits.
Under the BNSS, Section 187(2) permits up to 15 days of police custody in aggregate and in parts.
The important distinction is the period during which this police custody can be utilised:
For offences attracting the 60-day detention framework, police custody can be utilised during the first 40 days.
For offences attracting the 90-day framework, police custody can be utilised during the first 60 days.
The overall investigation period remains 60 or 90 days, after which default bail may become available if statutory conditions are satisfied.
For instance, if a digital investigation reveals a new location on the 35th day, investigators may seek the remaining permissible police custody rather than being barred merely because the first 15 days have elapsed.
The Supreme Court clarified that the provision was designed to accommodate fresh facts, discoveries and investigative leads emerging after the initial stage of investigation.
Rationale and Judicial Safeguards
The judgment recognises that contemporary investigations are often complex and that evidence may emerge progressively.
Later-stage custody may become necessary for:
Recovery of concealed weapons or documents
Examination of digital devices
Identification of additional accused
Verification of locations revealed during investigation
Reconstruction of the crime scene
Investigation of financial and cyber links
Significance of the Present Case
The present case concerned an alleged custodial death. The victim’s body remained untraced, the original CCTV hard disks were yet to be recovered, and further discoveries and recoveries were expected.
The Supreme Court therefore held that a Magistrate cannot impose an absolute, non-extendable prohibition preventing investigators from seeking the remaining permissible police custody.
At the same time, police custody is not an automatic entitlement. The Magistrate must assess:
The necessity of custody
The specific investigative purpose
Availability of fresh leads
Proportionality of the request
Compliance with constitutional safeguards
Thus, a request for further custody merely to repeat interrogation, without identifying a fresh investigative purpose, should not automatically be accepted.
Personal Liberty, Custodial Violence and Constitutional Protection
The wider remand window raises important concerns regarding Articles 20(3), 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Article 20(3): Protects an accused from compelled self-incrimination.
Article 21: Protects life, personal liberty and dignity.
Article 22: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, including access to legal representation.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation must therefore operate alongside safeguards established in:
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal against custodial abuse
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani concerning protection against compelled self-incrimination
Custodial Deaths: The Accountability Challenge
Government data placed before Parliament recorded 170 custodial deaths in 2025–26 up to March 15, 2026, compared with:
176 in 2021–22
163 in 2022–23
157 in 2023–24
140 in 2024–25
A wider remand window without effective accountability could increase opportunities for coercive interrogation.
Where an accused alleges custodial torture, medical examinations, CCTV footage, custody registers and interrogation recordings can provide objective evidence for judicial scrutiny.
Right to Lawyer and Audio-Visual Safeguards
Section 38 of BNSS: Section 38 provides that an arrested person is entitled to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
The Supreme Court clarified that:
Continuous physical presence of a lawyer is not mandatory.
The lawyer may remain where the accused can be seen.
The lawyer cannot interfere with questioning.
The provision seeks to balance legal protection with effective investigation.
For example, during interrogation in a murder investigation, the advocate may observe the accused from the permitted location but cannot interrupt every question or answer.
Audio-Visual Recording
The Court preferred recording the actual interrogation, discovery proceedings and recovery proceedings, rather than requiring continuous recording of every movement of the accused.
Such recording can:
Reduce the scope for custodial abuse
Protect investigating officers from false allegations
Create an objective evidentiary record
Improve transparency and judicial review
For instance, if an accused leads police to a concealed weapon, recording the recovery process can establish how and where the evidence was discovered.
Custodial Deaths, Police Accountability and Scientific Investigation
The case has special significance because the underlying matter involved an alleged custodial death in which police personnel were themselves implicated.
Where police officials are accused, investigation by the same local hierarchy may create a conflict of interest.
An appropriate Special Investigation Team or independent investigative mechanism can improve credibility. Independent medical examination and preservation of CCTV and digital evidence are particularly important.
NCRB-linked data has recorded thousands of police-custody deaths over the past decades, highlighting the persistent accountability challenge.
Need for Scientific Policing
The expanded remand window should not reinforce dependence on custodial interrogation. Police must increasingly rely on:
DNA and forensic evidence
Cyber-forensics
Digital-device analysis
CCTV analytics
Fingerprints
Financial intelligence
Location data
Crime-scene reconstruction
For example, in cybercrime, transaction trails, server logs and device metadata can establish criminal links without relying primarily on prolonged interrogation.
The Malimath Committee and 2nd ARC have emphasised professionalisation, modernisation, scientific investigation and police accountability.
Default Bail: The Statutory Counterbalance
The expanded police-custody window does not permit indefinite detention.
The applicable statutory framework provides:
1. 90 days: Investigations involving offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more.
2. 60 days: Other offences covered by the relevant provision.
On expiry of the applicable period without completion of investigation, the accused may become entitled to default bail, subject to statutory requirements.
Note: the framework combines: 24-hour production → Magistrate’s authorisation → maximum 15 days aggregate police custody → 60/90-day investigation limit → default-bail safeguard |
Key Challenges
1. Possibility of Custodial Coercion
A wider window may be misused if police custody becomes a substitute for scientific investigation.
2. Quality of Magisterial Scrutiny
Formal approval without examining the specific investigative necessity could weaken constitutional safeguards.
3. Unequal Access to Legal Assistance
Poor and vulnerable accused may have a statutory right to counsel without having meaningful access to effective representation.
4. Technological and Infrastructural Gaps
Audio-visual recording requires reliable equipment, secure storage, authentication and tamper-proof preservation.
5. Uneven Forensic Capacity
Large differences exist among States in forensic infrastructure, trained personnel and cyber-investigation capabilities.
6. Accountability Deficit
Continuing custodial deaths demonstrate that legal safeguards require effective institutional enforcement.
Way Forward
1. Strengthen Judicial Scrutiny
Police-remand applications should specify the precise investigative objective and necessity of custody.
2. Institutionalise Audio-Visual Recording
Interrogation, discovery and recovery proceedings should be securely recorded and preserved.
3. Ensure Independent Medical Examination
Periodic medical examination should be substantive and independent.
4. Strengthen Legal Aid
Section 38 should provide meaningful access to counsel, particularly for vulnerable accused.
5. Modernise Policing
Forensic laboratories, cyber-forensic capabilities, DNA facilities and digital-evidence infrastructure should be expanded.
6. Ensure Independent Investigation of Custodial Deaths
Sensitive cases involving police personnel should be investigated through appropriately independent mechanisms.
7. Strengthen Accountability
Allegations of custodial torture should receive prompt, impartial investigation and appropriate disciplinary or criminal action.
8. Develop Tamper-Proof Custody Records
Digital custody registers, CCTV systems and secure evidence-management mechanisms should be standardised.
9. Promote Evidence-Based Policing
Custodial interrogation should supplement rather than replace forensic and technological investigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 187(2) of the BNSS establishes an important distinction that the window for using police custody has widened, but the maximum aggregate period of police custody remains 15 days.
The judgment recognises the realities of complex and evolving investigations while retaining judicial scrutiny and constitutional safeguards. The larger challenge is therefore to ensure that expanded investigative flexibility does not come at the cost of personal liberty, dignity and protection against custodial abuse.
A modern criminal-justice system must increasingly move from custody-centric investigation to evidence-based, scientific and accountable policing.
