The Supreme Court has clarified that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 permits investigating agencies to seek police custody of an accused beyond the first fifteen days of remand, provided the total period of police custody does not exceed fifteen days and is exercised within the statutory remand period.
Delivering an important interpretation of Section 187(2) and (3) of the BNSS, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the new criminal procedure law departs from the earlier framework under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Under the BNSS, police custody may be granted in separate phases during the first 40 or 60 days of detention, depending on the nature of the offence, instead of being confined exclusively to the initial fifteen days.
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed by the State against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had imposed a condition preventing any extension of police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.
According to the Court, the revised statutory scheme reflects a conscious legislative decision to provide investigators with greater flexibility where new evidence or investigative developments emerge after the accused has already spent time in judicial custody. The judges observed that limiting police custody to the first fifteen days alone would defeat the objective behind the new provision.
The dispute arose from the investigation into the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna. As per the prosecution, the victim was taken into police custody on May 6, 2026, and brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station in Vijayawada but was never produced before a Magistrate. He later disappeared, and his body has not been recovered.
Following a complaint by the victim’s mother, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted. During the probe, a police officer was arrested on June 23, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody. Investigators subsequently sought twelve days of police custody to continue the investigation.
While granting custody, the Magistrate attached numerous conditions. These included conducting interrogation only inside the Central Prison, continuous video recording of questioning, permitting the accused’s advocate to remain present during interrogation, and prescribing a fixed outer limit beyond which police custody could not be extended. The Andhra Pradesh High Court largely retained these safeguards while reducing the period of police custody to eight days.
Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that these restrictions substantially impaired the investigation and prevented effective custodial interrogation.
Accepting this contention, the Court observed that several of the imposed conditions created genuine obstacles to the investigation. It held that the investigating agency’s concerns were well-founded and that unnecessary judicial restrictions should not undermine the statutory powers granted under the BNSS.
Explaining the scope of Section 187(2), the Bench noted that the legislature intentionally broadened the availability of police custody to address situations where fresh disclosures, recoveries or investigative leads surface after the initial remand. The Court said that such developments may require further custodial interrogation, making it inappropriate to permanently shut the door on police custody merely because the first fifteen days have passed.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court pointed out that the alleged offence had taken place nearly 160 kilometres from the prison where the accused was lodged. The judges observed that further investigation could lead to discoveries or recoveries based on disclosure statements admissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, making additional custodial interrogation both relevant and necessary.
Holding that the High Court’s condition effectively nullified the statutory framework introduced under the BNSS, the Supreme Court struck down the restriction imposing an absolute, non-extendable limit on police custody. The Bench ruled that such a condition was inconsistent with Section 187(2) because it prevented investigators from seeking custody even if new evidence emerged during the permissible remand period.
The Court also set aside the remaining conditions that, in its view, unnecessarily impeded the investigation, reaffirming that while procedural safeguards remain important, they cannot override the legislative intent behind the expanded custodial framework introduced under the BNSS.
