Section 187 BNSS: Supreme Court Says Police Custody Need Not Be Confined to First 15 Days

The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 187(2) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [earlier Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)] allows investigating agencies to seek police custody beyond the first 15 days of remand, provided the total period of police custody does not exceed 15 days.

Explaining the scope of the BNSS provision, Court said that unlike the erstwhile Section 167 of the CrPC, it permits police custody to be granted in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of the permissible detention period, instead of restricting it to the initial 15 days alone.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against conditions imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the police custody of a police inspector accused in a custodial death case.

Section 187(2) of the BNSS states:

"The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, irrespective of whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, after taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled, authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3), and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction."

Court observed that the legislative change was introduced to enable investigators to effectively pursue fresh leads or discoveries that may emerge during the course of investigation.

"Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency... rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone," the Bench said.

It added that the amendment was intended to deal with situations where fresh facts, discoveries or investigative leads surface later in the investigation, requiring further custodial interrogation. Courts, therefore, should not prematurely shut this statutory window by imposing inflexible restrictions that could frustrate the investigation.

The observations came while the Court examined a condition imposed by the magistrate, and substantially retained by the high court, which directed that the police custody of the accused should not be extended beyond July 10, 2026.

The Supreme Court held that such a direction effectively foreclosed the investigating agency's statutory right to seek further police custody under Section 187(2) BNSS if the investigation later revealed the need for it.

"We are, therefore, unable to sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal," the Bench held.

The appeal arose from an order governing the police custody of Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, an inspector of police accused in connection with the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna.

According to the prosecution, Sai Krishna was illegally detained, subjected to custodial torture leading to his death, and his body was subsequently made to disappear. The respondent was arrested by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on June 23, 2026, and later remanded to judicial custody at Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

The magistrate granted police custody subject to several conditions, including confining interrogation to the prison premises, requiring continuous videography of the accused's movements and limiting the duration of police custody. The high court modified some of those conditions but retained many others, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court.

Apart from clarifying the scope of Section 187 BNSS, the Supreme Court also held that Section 38 of the BNSS, which gives an arrested person the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, does not confer a right to have the lawyer remain physically present throughout the interrogation process.

Court further ruled that while videography of custodial interrogation is an important safeguard, requiring uninterrupted recording of every minute of the accused's transit between locations is impractical. It held that what must be continuously recorded is the actual interrogation and any recovery or discovery proceedings, not the logistical movement of the accused

Accordingly, the Bench modified the conditions imposed by the courts below. It held that the Investigating Officer would have unrestricted access to the accused during the seven-day police custody granted pursuant to the judgment, while ensuring that the total police custody, including the period already granted, would not exceed 15 days. It also permitted interrogation at the SIT's designated interrogation centre or any equivalent secure police facility in Vijayawada instead of restricting it to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju

Judgment Date: July 27, 2026

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta