Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Pogadadabnda Revathi and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16536 of 2025]
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 187 [Corresponding to Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Police remand – Where Investigating Agency seeks police remand of accused who has already been enlarged on bail, proper and legally permissible course is to first seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law and only thereafter apply for police custody – Scheme of criminal procedure does not countenance grant of police remand of accused who continues to enjoy protection of bail, as such a course would effectively defeat and nullify order granting bail – Grant of police custody in face of an existing bail order would amount to indirect cancellation of bail – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 17, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 13th October, 2025 passed by High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 13071 of 2025.
Findings of Court:
Accused-appellants stand enlarged on bail by effect of order dated 17th March, 2025 passed by Magistrate, which has not been challenged before any forum and consequently grant of police custody in the face of an existing bail order would amount to indirect cancellation of bail.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
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. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below.
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.
4.2 The appellants2 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘accused-appellants’] herein, namely, Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR and were presented before the learned XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad3 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘learned Magistrate’] on 12th March, 2025 and were remanded to judicial custody till 26th March, 2025 by an order of even date.
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. The said application was rejected vide order dated 17th March, 2025 and the following reasons were assigned for declining police custody:
7. In the present case, admittedly the present investigating officer examined the material witnesses and recorded the confession panchanama of the A1 & A2 and also seized incriminating material i.e. One Dell Laptop, Asus Laptop, Two Segate Hard Disk, One-Pulse Media Logo, TP Link Wifi Router and 7 CPU's under cover of seizure panchanama. In addition to it the laptop, mobile phone of husband of A1 are also seized by police. Under these facts and circumstances, this court does not find any tenable grounds to grant police custody of the accused herein for the reasons assigned in the requisition and it appears that the presence of the respondents is not required for police custody to proceed with further. The petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.”
4.4 It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Magistrate vide a separate order of even date i.e. 17th March, 2025 enlarged the accused-appellants on bail.
4.5 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the request for grant of police custody, the respondent, the State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, who vide order dated 26th September, 2025 allowed the same and directed that the accused-appellants be remanded to police custody from 6th October, 2025 to 8th October, 2025. However, the said order was subsequently modified, altering the period of custody from 13th October, 2025 to 15th October, 2025.
4.6 It is imperative to state here that in the order granting police custody of the accused-appellants,
Police remand – When an accused is enlarged on bail, police custody cannot be granted so long as order of bail continues to operate.
No accused can be permitted to frustrate judicial process by his conduct.
The court upheld the revisional court's order granting police custody for evidence seizure under specific legal provisions.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
The period of house arrest does not constitute custody for the purposes of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is declared illegal and unsustainable in law by a competent court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
