Date of Reserve: 06.07.2026

Date of pronouncement: 07.07.2026

Date of uploading: 07.07.2026

APHC010339802026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3504]

TUESDAY, THE 7

th

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO

KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5443 of 2026

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE

INVESTIGATION OFFICER, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

TEAM, ADDL. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMIN)

BAPATLA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU, S/o.

Krishna Rao, aged 53 years, the then Inspector of Police,

Krishna Lanka PS, R/o.Flat No.301, Avasa Brindavan

Apartment, Near Loyola College, Vijayawada.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C., and 528

of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the

Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court

pleased to set aside/modify the conditions in the Order dated

02.07.2026 passed in CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026 by the Hon’ble II

ADDL Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada in

connection with Crime No. 107 of 2026 of Krishna Lanka PS,

more particularly the specific conditions 28.1; 28.4; 28.5; 28.10;

28.13; 28.14 and 28.15 imposed in the above Order and

2

consequently allow the Investigating Officer to conduct custodial

interrogation of the accused in the jurisdictional police station and

to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and 528 of BNSS

praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of

Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to

dispense with the filing of Original Copy of Order dated

02.07.2026 passed in CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026 by the Hon’ble II

ADDL Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada in connection

with Crime No. 107 of 2026 of Krishna Lanka PS and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS

praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of

Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may

be pleased to permit the Investigating Officer to conduct custodial

interrogation of the accused in connection with Crime No. 107 of

2026 of Krishna Lanka PS in the jurisdictional Police Station,

pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and to pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and 528 of BNSS

praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of

Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to

suspend the operation of the Order dated 02.07.2026 passed in

CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026 by the Hon’ble II ADDL Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada in connection with Crime

No.107 of 2026 of Krishna Lanka PS, pending disposal of the

above Criminal Petition, and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5443 of 2026

The Court made the following Order:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, (for short “BNSS”) has been

filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor to

set aside/modify the conditions imposed by learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada vide Order dated

02.07.2026 in CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026.

2. Heard Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor

representing the petitioner-State and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondent-accused and perused the

material available on record.

3. For the disposal of the instant Criminal Petition, the brief

facts are delineated hereunder:

i) FIR in Crime No.107 of 2026 of Krishna Lanka Police

Station, Vijayawada was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 127(4), 127(6) & 103(1) of

BNSS and Section 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023

(for short “BNS”). As per the version of the prosecution, one

Gade Sai Krishna against whom Non-Bailable Warrants

4

were pending, was apprehended at Markapur on

06.05.2026 at 03:00 AM, as per the requisition made by the

Respondent herein in the capacity of Inspector of Police,

Krishna Lanka Police Station and the said G.Sai Krishna

was handed over to the Krishna Lanka Police Station

personnel. Despite of the same, the said G.Sai Krishna has

not been produced before the concerned jurisdictional

Magistrate, as mandated under the law. Thereafter, where-

abouts of the said G.Sai Krishna were not known.

ii) It is the further case of prosecution that the said

G.Sai Krishna was allegedly killed in the illegal custody of

Respondent-Police Officer, with the assistance of other

police personnel. Indisputably, for the last several weeks,

said G.Sai Krishna, has not been produced either in person

or his dead body, despite specific directions of Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in WP No.15132 of 2026.

iii) It is apparent from the record that in view of facts and

circumstances involved in the lis, the State of Andhra

Pradesh formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT)

comprising of the best Police personnel, to unravel the truth

in the said crime.

5

iv) In the wake of referred facts, the prosecution has

preferred CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026, before the concerned

Magistrate under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking police

custody of the respondent-accused by setting out specific

reasons, wherein, respondent has filed objections/counter

by resisting the police custody, mainly on the ground that

the said police custody is sought to frame him.

v) Learned Magistrate after noting all the contents of

the Petition, as well as the averments made in the counter

affidavit and also taking note of the well-settled legal

principles, allowed the said petition vide Order dated

02.07.2026 by imposing certain conditions.

vi) Now, in the present Criminal Petition, the prosecution

is challenging some of the conditions on the ground that the

conditions are coming in the way of investigation and they

are nothing but hurdles on the prosecution. For the sake of

a comprehensive view, the conditions seeking to set-

aside/modify are delineated as under:

28.1. The Respondent/accused shall be

entitled to nominate two advocates, namely Sri

P.Baburao and one other advocate of his choice, to

6

be present at the Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram, during police custody.

However, only one advocate shall be permitted to

remain present at any given point of time during the

interrogation.

28.4. The Investigating Officer shall ensure

that the entire interrogation is conducted within the

coverage area of the CCTV cameras or any other

video recording system installed in the jail premises,

so as to ensure transparency, fairness and

accountability.

28.5. The entire period of police custody,

including every session of interrogation, shall be

continuously video-graphed and audio-visually

recorded without any interruption, pause or editing.

28.10. The Jail Superintendent/Jailor shall

permit the presence of one advocate during the

interrogation of the accused in accordance with the

above conditions and subject to the provisions of the

Jail Manual.

28.13. The Jail Superintendent shall ensure that the

CCTV footage recorded within the jail premises

during the period of police custody is preserved intact

until further orders of this Court and shall not permit

its deletion, overwriting or tampering.

28.14. The Investigating Officer, the Additional

Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT,

and the Jail Superintendent shall be jointly and

severally responsible for ensuring the safety, life and

7

physical well-being of the accused/A1/Suda Suresh

Veera Venkata Naga Raju, throughout the period of

police custody.

28.15. Under no circumstances, shall the

period of police custody granted under this order be

extended beyond 10.07.2026.

4. Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor

representing the petitioner-State submits that in order to conduct

fair and effective investigation and to trace out the corpse of said

G.Sai Krishna and to reconstruct the scene of offence, at the

place of occurrence i.e., Krishna Lanka Police Station,

Vijayawada, and also to take necessary steps for recovery of

material evidence, the presence of respondent-accused is just

and essential at Vijayawada. He also elaborates that in view of

the heinous crime committed by the respondent, by misusing his

official capacity as a Police officer and his frantic efforts to screen

the evidence i.e., corpse of G.Sai Krishna, and also the designed

missing of CCTV Footage of Krishna Lanka Police Station for the

crucial period i.e., from 01.05.2026 to 01.06.2026, the presence

of respondent at Vijayawada is essentially required, to continue

with the investigation.

8

5. Learned Public Prosecutor mainly asserts that the condition

of confining the police custody to the premises of Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram, is against the statutory scheme, as

envisaged under Section 23 and 180 of BNSS. He vehemently

submits that conducting the police investigation exclusively at

Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram is detrimental to the

prosecution to unravel the truth in the crime. Learned Public

Prosecutor during the course of arguments submits that as of

today i.e., 06.07.2026, the Investigation Agency (SIT) has not

proceeded with the Police Custody, from 03.07.2026 onwards.

6. Substantiating his assertions, learned Public Prosecutor

relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of

Bihar and Another Vs. PP Sarma IAS and Another

1

,

P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

2

and Central

Bureau of Investigation Vs. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra

3

.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-

accused by reiterating the assertions made in the Counter

Affidavit, mainly submits that the entire Police Department is

determined to frame the respondent in the said Criminal case and

1

1991 (SUPP) 1 SCC 222

2

2019 (9) SCC 24

3

2023 (6) SCC 49

9

sought for the Police Custody. He also apprehends that there is a

life threat to the Respondent, during the course of interrogation in

the Police Custody. He mainly asserts that in view of tremendous

pressure from the public, the Respondent Police are making

every effort to rope him in the said case, without there being any

supportive evidence. Lastly, he submits that there is no prejudice

to the rights of the SIT in conducting investigation against the

accused at Central Prison, Rajahmundry which is equipped with

all the modern infrastructure facilities.

8. Substantiating his assertions, learned counsel for

respondent relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L.Dani and Another

4

and D.K.Basu

Vs. State of West Bengal

5

wherein it is stated that custodial

violence, including torture and death in police custody, is the

worst kind of crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of

law.

9. Now the point for consideration before this Court is:

i) Whether the conditions imposed by the learned

Magistrate vide Order dated 02.07.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1400

of 2026 are liable to be interdicted or modified?

4

(1978) 2 SCC 424

5

(1997) 1 SCC 416

10

ii) If so, to what extent ?

10. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the

case and also considering the rival submissions asserted by

learned counsel on both sides, indisputably, a Crime in FIR

No.107 of 2026 was registered under Sections 127(4), 127(6) &

103(1) of BNSS and Section 238 of BNS against the respondent,

who is none other than, the then Police Inspector, Krishna Lanka

Police Station, Vijayawada.

11. According to the Prosecution, there is prima facie evidence

which suggests the active involvement of the respondent along

with the other police personnel in screening the evidence i.e.,

CCTV Footage as well as the corpse of G.Sai Krishna. Whereas,

the contra version of Respondent is that the Petition for police

custody is filed only with a sole intention to frame the Respondent

in the crime. Further, the respondent apprehends life-threat from

the Investigation Authority, under the guise of interrogation.

12. Apparently, as of now the whereabouts or corpse of said

G.Sai Krishna is yet to be known. More so, there is a serious

allegation of missing of CCTV Footage for the relevant period, so

as to cover their ill-acts in the Police Station and as such,

11

manipulated the CCTV Footage and Hard-disk etc., in respect of

the said crucial period, wherein the alleged killing of G.Sai

Krishna was taken place in the illegal police custody.

13. In the light of above facts and circumstances, conducting

the Police investigation exclusively at Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram may put hurdles on the Investigation

Agency, to proceed with the statutory investigation powers vested

with them, to unravel the truth.

14. For effective and easy understanding, Section 23 of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short “BSA”) and

Section 38 and 180 of BNSS is extracted hereunder:

Section 23 of BSA: Confession to police officer:

(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be

proved as against a person accused of any offence

(2) No confession made by any person while he is in

the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in

the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be

proved against him;

Provided that when any fact is deposed to as

discovered in consequence of information received

from a person accused of any offence, in the custody

of a police officer, so much of such information,

whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates

distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

12

…….

Section 38 of BNSS. Right of arrested person to meet

an advocate of his choice during interrogation:

When any person is arrested and interrogated by the

police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his

choice during interrogation, though not throughout

interrogation.

……..

Section 180 of BNSS. Examination of witnesses by

police:-

(1) Any police officer making an investigation

under this Chapter, or any police officer not below

such rank as the State Government may, by general

or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on

the requisition of such officer, may examine orally

any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts

and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all

questions relating to such case put to him by such

officer, other than questions the answers to which

would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal

charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any

statement made to him in the course of an

examination under this section; and if he does so, he

shall make a separate and true record of the

statement of each such person whose statement he

records.

Emphasis supplied

13

15. In view of the importance and significance of Section 23 of

BSA, in the present context of facts of the case, it is apt to state

that dictum of the Apex Court in Raja Khan Vs State of

Chattisgarh

6

on 07.02.2025 vividly discussed Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act, whch is now enunciated as Proviso Clause

in Section 23 of the BSA, 2023. Essential ingredients of Section

27 of the Evidence Act are threefold:

i. The information given by the accused must led to the

discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such

information.

ii. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly

connected with the said recovery is admissible against the

accused.

iii. The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission

of such offence.

Thus, in view of the above statutory realm as well as the true

purport of the Apex Court in the context of peculiar facts in the

case is apt. Hence, this Court is formulating its view by centrally

relying upon the above reasoning.

16. Hence, in the light of statutory provisions as well as powers

of Investigating Agency and also considering its object and

intendment, Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram

referred supra, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court vividly held that the

statutory power and functions of the Judicial intervention should

6

2025(3) SCC 314

14

not impede the investigation being conducted by the Investigation

Agency, unless there are exceptional circumstances and the

same was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar

stated supra, and Central Bureau of Investigation stated supra.

More particularly, doctrine of confirmation of subsequent events,

is part and parcel of the investigation to unfold the real truth.

17. Yet another significant facet in the lis is that on one hand,

the prosecution alleges that respondent-accused while

discharging his official duties as police officer, purposefully made

efforts to dislodge and manipulate the CCTV Footage to cover his

ill-acts. While coming to his case, the Respondent-the then Police

Inspector is seeking the aid of the very same device mechanism,

during the course of interrogation. Self-contradictory stand of

respondent appears to be approbate and reprobate, but does not

mean that his plea cannot be declined in the light of statutory

mandates.

18. Considering the Constitutional mandates which were vividly

explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of its remarkable

Judgments, this Court being the Constitutional Court, which is

guardian to protect the rights of accused as well as the statutory

powers of Investigating Agency in it’s true letter and spirt and also

15

by striking the balance between the above two facets, is inclined

to dispose of the Criminal Petition by modifying the Order dated

02.07.2026 in CrI.M.P.No.1400 of 2026 of the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada to the

following extent:

i) The period of police custody shall commence from

09.07.2026 and end by 16.07.2026;

ii) The Investigation Officer of Special Investigation

Team (SIT) is allowed to take the Respondent/Accused to

the scene of offences for recovery of material evidence,

reconstruction of scene of offence and for such other

purposes, in accordance with the law, in the event of facts

revealed by the respondent-accused;

iii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall take all

necessary steps by considering the ground realities to

videograph the every movement of the accused right from

Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram to Vijayawada and

vice-versa; and the Investigation Officer of the Special

Investigation Team (SIT) shall submit the said videographic

recordings in its original form before the concerned

Jurisdictional Magistrate at Vijayawada, by 17.07.2026;

16

iv) The Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram shall submit the entire CCTV Footage

recorded in the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram,

during the course of Police custody, in its original form, to

the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate at Vijayawada, by

17.07.2026;

v) The Investigation Officer and all the members of SIT

are hereby directed to take all positive steps to protect the

life, limb and personal dignity of respondent/accused in the

light of constitutional safeguards, during the entire period of

Police Custody.

vi) All the other conditions imposed by learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada

vide Order dated 02.07.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1400 of 2026

shall remain in-tact.

vii) Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall conduct the

impartial and scientific method of investigation, to unravel

the truth and to uphold the integrity of “Satyameva Jayate”,

the national motto of India.

19. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part.

17

20. Needless to state that the investigation shall proceed

uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court, as such

observations have been made solely for the purpose of disposing

of the present Criminal Petition.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ _______

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 07.07.2026

Note: Issue C.C. by today i.e., 07.07.2026

B/o.

PSA

Whether the Order is:

Speaking ✔ Reasoned

Reportable Non-reportable ✔

18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5443 of 2026

Date: 07.07.2026

Note: Issue C.C. by today i.e., 07.07.2026

B/o.

PSA