Supreme Court Stays Police Custody of Journalists on Bail, Citing Impermissibility

New Delhi – In a significant order reinforcing the sanctity of bail, the Supreme Court of India has stayed a Telangana High Court decision that permitted state police to take two women journalists into custody for investigation, despite them having been granted bail months prior. The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of police powers post-bail and the protection of individual liberty under the criminal justice system.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta intervened in the matter, issuing a notice to the State of Telangana and staying the High Court's order pending further hearing. The apex court's decision came after hearing forceful arguments from Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, who contended that the state's action was a "classic case of the Police high-handedness."

The case, POGADADABNDA REVATHI AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA, SLP(Crl) No. 16536/2025 , centers on an FIR filed against Pogadadanda Revathi, Managing Director of Pulse News, and Bandi Sandhya, a reporter for the same outlet. They were booked in connection with an allegedly objectionable video concerning Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy that circulated on the social media platform X. The FIR, filed on March 10, invoked Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Following their arrest, a Judicial Magistrate’s Court granted the journalists bail on March 17. The core of the present dispute arose nearly 200 days later when the police, without seeking cancellation of the existing bail, moved an application for their police custody for "further questioning."

The Central Legal Conundrum: Custody After Bail

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an accused, once enlarged on bail, can be re-arrested and taken into police custody for the purpose of investigation while the bail order remains operative.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that such a move is legally impermissible. He submitted to the bench that while the police can summon an accused for investigation as a condition of bail, taking them into custody is a separate, more severe measure that infringes upon the liberty granted by the court. "Taking a person into police custody after grant of bail, without the bail having been cancelled, is not permissible," Dave argued, emphasizing that his clients have been consistently cooperating with the Investigating Officer (IO).

The plea filed by the journalists asserted that no cogent reasons were provided for seeking custody after such a prolonged period, during which they had complied with all bail conditions. The petition further alleged that the move was an attempt to harass them and "please their political superiors." It stated, "It is submitted that this is a classic case of the Police high-handedness of the State on the senior Journalists of the society... and as such the Order granting police custody is mechanical, un-reasoned and liable to be set aside."

The State's Justification and the High Court's Rationale

The prosecution's argument for seeking custody, which found favour with the lower courts, was the necessity to seize electronic devices. The police contended that they needed to recover mobile phones, laptops, and other storage devices where the alleged abusive videos were stored. The journalists' plea noted that numerous devices had already been seized from the office of petitioner No. 1 and their personal residences.

A sessions court in Hyderabad allowed the police's custody petition on September 26. This order was subsequently challenged before the Telangana High Court. On October 13, the High Court upheld the sessions court's decision, reasoning that the police's need to seize material evidence was a valid ground for granting custody. "The ground raised by the police in the police custody petition that they need to seize the other material including storage devices, requires consideration. Hence, by considering the said ground, the petition seeking police custody has to be allowed," the High Court had observed in its order.

The Supreme Court's Intervention and Its Implications

The Supreme Court's decision to stay the High Court's order signals a prima facie agreement with the petitioner's core argument. By issuing the interim stay, the bench of Justices Nath and Mehta has effectively put a halt to the journalists being taken into custody, pending a final decision on the matter. The order reads: “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”

This case has significant implications for criminal procedure and the rights of the accused. It forces a re-examination of the delicate balance between the investigative necessities of law enforcement and the fundamental right to liberty. Legal experts suggest that allowing police to seek custody of an accused who is on bail, without demonstrating non-cooperation or a supervening cause for bail cancellation, could render the concept of bail fragile. It could potentially be used as a tool to circumvent the protection granted by a judicial order, allowing for repeated detentions under the guise of "further investigation."

The Supreme Court's final verdict in this matter will be keenly watched. It is expected to clarify the procedural safeguards available to an accused on bail and delineate the precise circumstances, if any, under which police can seek custodial interrogation without first moving for the cancellation of bail. For legal practitioners, this case will serve as a crucial precedent on the durability of a bail order and the limits of state power in the post-bail investigative process. The outcome will likely reaffirm or redefine the principles governing personal liberty in the face of ongoing criminal investigations.