Police Interrogation Rights Prevail Over Restrictive Custody Conditions That Render Statutory Remand Illusory

The respondent, a Police Inspector, was arraigned for offences under Sections 127(4), 127(6), 103(1), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), following the alleged custodial death and disappearance of Gade Sai Krishna.

The State (SIT) sought 12 days of police remand to recover the body and material evidence.

The Magistrate granted 8 days of custody but imposed 15 restrictive conditions, including requiring interrogation to occur only within jail premises, continuous videography of all movements, and the constant presence of an advocate.

The High Court partially modified these, allowing movement for scene reconstruction but largely retaining the restrictive regime.

The State appealed, arguing these conditions rendered custodial interrogation illusory.

1. Whether the conditions restricting custodial interrogation to jail premises and mandating continuous videography of transit impinge upon the statutory rights of the investigating agency.

2. Whether Section 38 of the BNSS entitles an accused to the continuous physical presence of an advocate throughout the entirety of an interrogation.

3. Whether a Magistrate can impose a non-extendable outer limit on police custody in view of the scheme of Section 187 of the BNSS.

Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which permits police custody in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of detention, expanding the window beyond the first 15 days of remand.

Section 38 of the BNSS, which grants an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, but "not throughout interrogation".

Constitutional safeguards under Article 21 regarding the protection of life and personal dignity against third-degree methods during custody.

Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (discovery of facts) as a justification for effective custodial interrogation.

The Court reasoned that confining interrogation to a prison 160 km away from the crime scene is unsustainable when the investigation requires the recovery of a body and electronic evidence at specific locations.

Regarding videography, the Court found that while recording interrogation sessions is a necessary safeguard, mandating "uninterrupted videography" of a six-hour road transit is logistically unworkable and prone to technical failures.

On the right to counsel, the Court noted that Section 38 BNSS does not permit an unqualified "continuous presence" of an advocate, which would obstruct the investigation.

The Court observed that the Magistrate’s order (Condition 28.15) setting a hard deadline for custody ignored the legislative intent of Section 187 BNSS, which allows for staggered periods of police remand within a larger window.

The 15-day aggregate limit for police remand applies, but a Magistrate cannot prematurely foreclose the Section 187 BNSS window.

Videography is mandatory for actual interrogation and discovery sessions, but not for transit.

An advocate may be within sight but cannot intervene or be entitled to continuous presence throughout the session.

The Court allowed the appeal and modified the custody conditions.