Legal Review and Analysis of Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr vs The State of Telangana 2026 INSC 75
Synopsis
This Supreme Court judgment deals with a critical procedural aspect of criminal law: the impermissibility of granting police custody remand for an accused who is already on bail. The Court held that so long as a bail order is in force, directing police custody amounts to an indirect cancellation of bail without following due process. The ruling reinforces the sanctity of bail orders and delineates the proper procedure for investigative agencies to follow when seeking custodial interrogation of a bailed accused.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 INSC 75
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Two Judges)
Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16536 of 2025
Judgment Date: January 09, 2026
2. Legal Framework and Context
This judgment interprets and applies the following key legal provisions and principles:
Primary Statute: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – the successor to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 187: Governs the remand of an accused to police or judicial custody. It stipulates that police custody remand (PCR), if at all, must be sought and granted within the first 15 days of the remand period (out of the initial 40 or 60 days, depending on the offence).Fundamental Principle: The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the legal sanctity of a bail order.
Key Precedent Relied Upon: Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat (2014) 14 SCC 434. This precedent establishes the legal principle that police custody cannot be granted for an accused who is already on bail. The proper course is to first seek cancellation of bail on valid grounds.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
An FIR was registered on March 10, 2025, at the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad.
The appellants were arrested on March 12, 2025, and remanded to judicial custody.
On March 13, 2025, the investigating officer applied for a 5-day police custody remand. The Magistrate rejected this application on March 17, 2025, citing that substantial investigation (including seizure of devices like laptops, hard disks, CPUs) and interrogation had already been completed. On the same day, the Magistrate granted regular bail to the appellants.
The State challenged the denial of PCR before the Sessions Court. In September 2025 (nearly 6 months later), the Sessions Court allowed the revision and granted 3 days of PCR, overlooking the fact of the existing bail order.
The appellants' challenge to this order was dismissed by the Telangana High Court in October 2025, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The core legal issues for consideration were:
Whether the Sessions Court and the High Court were justified in granting police custody remand nearly six months after the accused were released on bail?
Whether police custody remand can be legally granted for an accused who is already enjoying the liberty granted by a subsisting bail order?
5. Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning and Decision)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and the High Court. The core legal reasoning is as follows:
Primacy of the Magistrate's Discretion: The discretion to grant or refuse police custody remand rests primarily with the Magistrate. When such discretion is exercised based on cogent reasons (as done here, noting extensive recoveries and interrogation), a revisional court should not interfere unless the order is perverse.
Fatal Procedural Illegality: The most significant legal flaw was directing PCR while the appellants were on bail. The Court reaffirmed the principle from Satyajit Ballubhai Desai that police custody and bail cannot co-exist. Granting PCR for a bailed accused effectively nullifies the bail order, even if for a short period, without following the strict legal process for cancellation of bail.
Proper Procedure Established: If the investigation agency requires the custodial interrogation of an accused who is on bail, the only legally permissible course is to first file an application for cancellation of bail on established grounds (e.g., witness tampering, evidence destruction, non-cooperation). Only after successful cancellation can police custody be sought.
Temporal Limit Ignored: The Court also implicitly noted that the grant of PCR by the Sessions Court fell foul of the statutory scheme under Section 187 BNSS, which contemplates PCR during the initial phases of detention, not months after bail has been granted.
6. Legal Principles Established or Reaffirmed
This judgment solidifies the following key criminal procedure principles:
Bail and Custody are Mutually Exclusive: An order of bail and an order for police custody remand cannot operate simultaneously. The former grants liberty; the latter takes it away.
Indirect Cancellation of Bail is Impermissible: A court cannot achieve the effect of cancelling bail through the backdoor by granting police custody. The specific, more onerous process for bail cancellation must be followed.
Sanctity of Judicial Discretion: The reasoned order of a Magistrate on remand matters deserves deference from higher courts in revision, unless it is manifestly perverse or arbitrary.
7. Analysis and Examination by the Court
The Court's analysis was structured and focused on procedural propriety:
Step 1 – Scrutiny of the Magistrate’s Order: The Court first examined the Magistrate's detailed order refusing PCR, which documented the recoveries and completed interrogation. It found the order logical and reasoned.
Step 2 – Identifying the Revisional Error: It then found that the Sessions Court, in revision, failed to engage with these reasons and gave generic justifications ("further recoveries," "detailed confessional statements") that were contradicted by the case diary.
Step 3 – Applying the Co-existence Principle: The Court applied the settled law from Satyajit Ballubhai Desai, holding that the very premise of granting PCR while bail subsisted was legally untenable.
Step 4 – Emphasizing the Correct Procedure: It clearly laid down the sequential steps: seek bail cancellation first, then if successful, apply for remand. This ensures the accused's right to contest the cancellation is protected.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court that had granted police custody remand. The appellants' bail and liberty were thus restored and protected.
Critical Implications:
Strong Safeguard for Liberty: The judgment acts as a robust procedural safeguard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty post-bail. It prevents investigating agencies from using PCR as a tool to circumvent a bail order.
Clarity for Lower Courts and Police: It provides clear, mandatory guidance to both the police and the judiciary on the inviolable sequence of procedures, reducing scope for abuse or judicial overreach.
Reinforces Hierarchical Discretion: It underscores that in remand matters, the Magistrate's considered discretion should not be lightly interfered with by superior courts in revision.
Temporal Relevance under BNSS: While not explicitly elaborated, the judgment implicitly reinforces the time-bound nature of police custody under the new BNSS regime, warning against belated attempts to secure it.
(MCQs)
1. As per the Supreme Court's ruling, what is the legally mandated procedure if the police need the custodial interrogation of an accused who is already on bail?
a) Directly apply for police custody remand from the Magistrate.
b) File an application for cancellation of bail first, and only upon cancellation, seek police custody.
c) Arrest the accused again and then seek fresh remand.
d) Approach the High Court directly for a direction to surrender.
2. Which section of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to CrPC 1973's Section 167, governs the grant of police custody remand?
a) Section 167
b) Section 187
c) Section 437
d) Section 439
3. The Supreme Court heavily relied on the precedent set in which of the following cases to establish that bail and police custody cannot co-exist?
a) State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
b) Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat
c) Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor
d) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
4. What was the fundamental legal error committed by the Sessions Court, as identified by the Supreme Court?
a) It reduced the period of police custody from 5 days to 3 days.
b) It granted police custody without considering the Magistrate's reasons and, crucially, while the accused's bail order was still in effect.
c) It took cognizance of the offence without jurisdiction.
d) It denied the accused the right to legal representation.