Back
Supreme Court Rules Police Can Seek Custodial Remand in Parts Under New Criminal Law
In a landmark interpretation of the recently enacted , the has clarified that is no longer confined to a single, continuous window. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that investigative agencies may seek police custody in parts within the permissible statutory limit, provided it does not exceed the aggregate duration allowed by law.
Case Background
The matter involves an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an order of the . The case centers on the of one Gade Sai Krishna, who allegedly disappeared after being apprehended by personnel on . A arrested a police inspector in connection with the crime. The local Magistrate initially granted eight days of police custody, accompanied by fifteen stringent conditions, which were later partially upheld by the High Court.
Conflicting Arguments
The State argued that the conditions—which included mandatory continuous videography of transit and confinement of interrogation to the cell—severely hampered the investigative process. , counsel for the state, contended that these restrictions essentially functioned as a pre-conceived notion that the police would use "" methods. Conversely, counsel for the respondent-accused argued that the protections were essential to safeguard his life and dignity, noting a legitimate fear of retaliation if he were brought back to the prison system where he had previously facilitated arrests.
Legal Analysis: The BNSS Shift
The Supreme Court noted that the behind the BNSS, 2023, marks a significant departure from the erstwhile . Under the old regime, the first 15 days were the exclusive window for police custody. However, expand this capability.
The Court held that the new framework allows investigators to seek remand in smaller, multiple sessions throughout the initial forty or sixty days of the investigation. This flexibility is critical for modern investigations where fresh facts or discoveries under the (formerly the ), can emerge at later stages.
Key Observations
The bench expressed concern regarding the practical burdens placed on law enforcement:
"We feel that the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency regarding the hurdles created in effective custodial investigation thereby frustrating the entire process is realistic and justified."
Regarding the interpretation of custody limits, the Court further noted:
"This legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge... and an unduly rigid or premature foreclosure of that ... would run counter to the object of the provision."
On the practicalities of surveillance, the Court observed:
"Interruptions on account of movement, signal loss, battery and storage... are inherent contingencies of road travel, and it would be unrealistic... to visit the investigating agency with the consequence of an inference of impropriety merely because of such an interruption."
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s rigid outer limit on custody, holding that such a restriction is incompatible with the design of the BNSS. The Court modified the custodial conditions to allow the SIT to conduct interrogations at its own designated facilities. While the requirement for audio-visual recording of the actual interrogation remains in place to balance human rights with investigative needs, the mandate for uniterrupted videography of the accused in transit has been lifted. The state is now free to pursue its investigation with greater procedural flexibility, provided it remains strictly accountable for the constitutional safety of the accused.
