Summary
The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allows police custody to be sought in parts, spread across the first 40 or 60 days of an investigation, rather than being confined to the first 15 days as under the old CrPC.
The aggregate custody period still cannot exceed 15 days. The ruling came in a case involving a custodial death investigation where new evidence was expected to surface late. The Court also clarified that an accused's right to a lawyer during interrogation does not require the lawyer's continuous physical presence and that audio-visual recording of the interrogation itself satisfies transparency requirements, without needing constant videography of the accused's movement between locations.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Supreme Court ruled in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju that a magistrate cannot impose an absolute, non-extendable limit on police custody, since that would block the investigating agency's statutory right under Section 187(2) of the BNSS to seek further custody later in the investigation.
The Court permitted seven additional days of police custody in the case, while modifying High Court conditions on the presence of a lawyer during interrogation and on continuous videography of the accused.
Standard News
THE FOUR-DECADE HABIT THE BNSS JUST BROKE
For nearly fifty years, the CrPC treated the first fifteen days after arrest as a closing door. Section 167 gave police custody only in that opening window - miss it and the accused shifted permanently into judicial custody, no matter what new evidence turned up later.
Section 187(2) of the BNSS rewrites that habit. The fifteen-day ceiling on police custody survives untouched, but the window in which those fifteen days can be claimed now stretches across the first 40 or 60 days of the total detention period, depending on the offence.
WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A TIMELINE TWEAK
The old system assumed investigators would know everything they needed within a fortnight of arrest. Real investigations rarely work that way - forensic reports arrive late, absconding co-accused surface weeks in, digital evidence takes time to recover.
In Suda Suresh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had tried to cap custody with an absolute, non-extendable limit. The Supreme Court struck that down precisely because an unmovable limit would foreclose the statutory right Section 187(2) itself creates - a magistrate cannot pre-emptively switch off a power Parliament deliberately kept open.
THE COUNTERWEIGHT THE COURT BUILT IN A
wider custody window is also a longer stretch of time an accused spends exposed to the coercive pressure of police proximity - the exact harm Article 21 and 22 exist to guard against. The Court's answer wasn't to shrink the window back down; it was to redesign the safeguard around it.
Instead of insisting a lawyer stay physically present through every minute of interrogation - which the Court read Section 38 as never actually promising - it settled for visual-line presence plus a harder requirement: audio-visual recording of the interrogation and of any discovery or recovery made with the accused.
Transparency through documentation, not physical proximity, becomes the check on a longer custodial runway.
THE EXAM-RELEVANT POINT
The story isn't "BNSS changed police custody rules." It's that the legislature and the judiciary made a joint, deliberate trade: investigative flexibility purchased with a documentation-based safeguard, not a time-based one. That's the mechanism worth remembering - not the numbers alone.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Section 58 BNSS caps detention without magistrate authorisation at 24 hours.
-
Section 187(2) BNSS permits police custody up to 15 days in aggregate, sought in parts across the first 40 or 60 days of the total detention period.
-
Section 187(3) BNSS sets the outer detention limits before default bail applies at 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or 10 or more years and 60 days for other offences.
-
Section 38 BNSS gives an arrested person the right to meet a lawyer during interrogation, but not to the lawyer's continuous presence throughout.
-
The earlier CrPC Section 167 confined police custody strictly to the first 15 days of remand.
-
The case is The State of Andhra Pradesh v.
-
Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, Neutral Citation 2026 INSC 744.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The full structural case for why extending custody flexibility over 40-60 days was judged necessary now, tied to specific investigative failures under the old CrPC
What is genuinely working and what is not working in the new BNSS custody-and-safeguard balance, argued through the Suda Suresh facts
The short-term and long-term way forward on custodial oversight that the ruling leaves unresolved
The full case study breakdown of how the audio-visual recording mandate is meant to function as evidence in future custody disputes
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Log In to Read Full ArticleDon't have an account? Sign up for free