POGADADABNDA REVATHI v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Police Custody After Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure, Emphasizing Need for Bail Cancellation Before Seeking Remand.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 75
Decision Date: 09-01-2026
List of Laws
The Information Technology Act, 2000; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Criminal Procedure
- Facts: Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya were arrested based on an FIR registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody but rejected the police's application for police custody, citing sufficient investigation and recoveries already made. Subsequently, the Magistrate granted them bail. The Sessions Judge, on revision, allowed police custody, which the High Court upheld.
- Procedural Posture: The accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave against the High Court's order that upheld the Sessions Judge's decision to grant police custody after the Magistrate had rejected it and granted bail.
- Issue: Can police custody be granted for an accused already enlarged on bail, and can a revisional court overturn a Magistrate's reasoned order denying police custody based on the extent of investigation already conducted?
- Holding: No, police custody cannot be granted while an accused is on bail without first cancelling the bail. The revisional court erred in overturning the Magistrate's order. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge.
- Reasoning: The Court held that granting police custody after bail effectively amounts to an indirect cancellation of bail without adhering to the legal parameters for such cancellation. Citing Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasized that "when the accused had been enlarged on bail by the High Court, it was all the more essential initially for the police authorities and thereafter by the Magistrate to disclose and assign convincing reasons why investigation could not proceed further without seeking police remand of the accused". The Court found that the Sessions Judge overlooked the Magistrate's reasoned order and that the High Court erred in directing police custody. The discretion to grant or deny police custody rests with the Magistrate, and their reasoned order should not be interfered with unless there is gross perversity.
🔒 For Members Only