Grant Of Police Custody Without Cancellation Of Bail Amounts To An Indirect Curtailment Of Liberty: Supreme Court

“So Long As the Bail Order Remains in Force, Police Custody Cannot Be Granted – Such a Course Would Amount to Indirect Cancellation of Bail”, In a significant ruling reaffirming the inviolability of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court. The Court held that once an accused has been enlarged on bail, police custody cannot be granted unless and until the bail is formally cancelled. The Court further emphasized that such a practice would amount to an indirect, unauthorized cancellation of bail and is legally impermissible.

Setting aside the orders of the High Court of Telangana dated 13.10.2025 and the Sessions Judge dated 26.09.2025, a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya, observing that “granting police custody of an accused already on bail is not just procedurally flawed, but strikes at the root of personal liberty protected under Article 21.”

Revisional Courts Cannot Circumvent Bail: Magistrate’s Discretion Must Be Respected

The genesis of the matter lies in FIR No. 527 of 2025, registered on 10th March 2025 at the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad, invoking offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 504 and 505(2) IPC). The accused, Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya, were arrested on 12th March 2025 and remanded to judicial custody.

On 17th March 2025, the learned XII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed two crucial orders: first, rejecting the police’s application for custody, and second, granting the accused regular bail. The Magistrate’s decision was reasoned and deliberate:

“In the present case, admittedly the investigating officer examined the material witnesses and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused and also seized incriminating material... Under these facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any tenable grounds to grant police custody... it appears that the presence of the respondents is not required for police custody to proceed with further.”

Despite this, nearly six months later, the Sessions Judge at Nampally allowed the State's revision petition on 26th September 2025, ordering police custody from 6th October, later revised to 13th–15th October. This order was upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

The apex court found both the Sessions and High Court orders to be legally unsustainable. Referring to Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 167 CrPC), the Court clarified that police custody within the first forty days is permissible only when the offence is not of a grave nature. But even within that period, custody is not to be granted automatically:

“Custody is not a matter of right for the police—it must be justified by necessity, not used to collect material already in possession or to re-interrogate persons who have already been extensively examined.”

“Granting Police Custody After Bail Is an Abuse of Process”: Supreme Court

The Bench condemned the revisional interference, noting that the Sessions Judge “did not even advert to the order of the learned Magistrate in the correct perspective”, and that the High Court “fell into grave error by failing to appreciate the legal position that police custody cannot be granted when bail is subsisting.”

Most significantly, the Court found that directing custody post-bail violates fundamental safeguards:

“Granting police custody for a period of three days would necessarily require the accused-appellants to be taken back into custody... which would, in effect, tantamount to cancellation of bail in an indirect manner, without adherence to the settled legal parameters governing cancellation of bail.”

Reiterating the position laid down in Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2014) 14 SCC 434], the Court emphasized that liberty granted by a competent court cannot be nullified by executive action masquerading as judicial discretion:

“Disclosure of reasons by the Magistrate allowing police remand especially in a matter when the accused has been enlarged on bail by a court of competent jurisdiction is all the more essential... it clearly affects the liberty of an individual who has been enlarged on bail.”

The Court concluded that police remand cannot be granted without first seeking and securing cancellation of bail, and failure to follow this procedure amounts to gross abuse of process.

Judgment Reaffirms Primacy of Article 21 and Limits on Investigative Overreach

The ruling is a robust reiteration of judicial safeguards for personal liberty. It sends a clear message that procedural shortcuts taken by investigating agencies—even with judicial blessing—cannot override constitutional guarantees.

The appeal was allowed in full, with the impugned orders quashed. The bail of the appellants remains intact, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: 9 January 2026