SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 80

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Pogadadabnda Revathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Mr. J. Venkat Sai, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  1. The court emphasized that police custody cannot be granted when a bail order is in effect, unless the bail is first canceled. This underscores the importance of proper legal reasoning before ordering police remand (!) .

  2. The order of the Magistrate declining police custody was well-reasoned, citing extensive investigation and recoveries already made, indicating that further police custody was unnecessary. The revisional court and High Court erred by ignoring these reasons and directing police custody after the bail had been granted (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  3. Once bail is granted, police custody can only be ordered if the bail is canceled first. The courts below failed to follow this procedure, leading to an abuse of process and an infringement on personal liberty (!) (!) .

  4. The period for police custody is limited by law, and in this case, the statutory period applicable was forty days. The courts' decision to grant police custody after the accused had been on bail for several months was legally unfounded (!) (!) .

  5. The order granting bail by the Magistrate was not challenged and remains in force. Therefore, any subsequent order for police custody, without prior cancellation of bail, is legally invalid and effectively amounts to canceling the bail indirectly (!) .

  6. The courts' interference in the order of the Magistrate, especially after a significant delay, was improper, and the orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Judge were set aside (!) .

  7. The final decision was to allow the appeal, thereby setting aside the orders that directed police custody while the bail was still in force (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.


Table of Content
1. summary of relevant facts leading to appeal. (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments from the accused and state. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's rationale on police custody and bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. guiding principles on bail and police custody. (Para 18)
5. court's final decision and orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

3. The instant appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 13th October, 2025 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad1 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’] in Criminal Petition No. 13071 of 2025.

4.1 An FIR bearing No. 527 of 2025 was registered on 10th March, 2025 at Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad against unknown persons under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 504 and 505 (2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860] on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. S. Kailash.

4.3 On 13th March, 2025, the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad moved an application before the learned Magistrate seeking police custody of the accused-appellants for a period of five days. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top