Supreme Court Holds Police Remand Cannot Be Ordered While Bail Continues; Sets Aside Sessions and High Court Orders Granting Custody

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) No.16536 of 2025 challenging the Telangana High Court’s order dated 13 October 2025 that sustained a Sessions Judge’s direction to remand two women accused to police custody for investigation in an FIR registered at the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad. The appeal concerned whether police custody could be lawfully directed after a Magistrate had declined such custody and had enlarged the accused on bail.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and held that police custody could not be granted while an operative bail order continued to protect the accused. The Court emphasised that the discretion to grant police remand rested with the Magistrate and that revisional interference required a showing of gross perversity. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled position of law that where the investigating agency seeks police remand of an accused who has already been enlarged on bail, the proper and legally permissible course is to first seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law and only thereafter apply for police custody." The bench noted that directing short police remands in face of an existing bail order would amount to an "indirect cancellation of bail" and would "effectively defeat and nullify the order granting bail."

Background
An FIR No.527 of 2025 was registered on 10 March 2025 under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 352 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 based on a complaint by S. Kailash. Pogadadabnda Revathi and Bandi Sandhya were arrested and produced before the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad on 12 March 2025. On 17 March 2025 the Magistrate rejected the police application for five days’ custody and concurrently enlarged the accused on bail, recording that "Remand to police custody should not be granted to collect the material and evidence" and that, given the recoveries and prior interrogation, "this court does not find any tenable grounds to grant police custody."

The investigating agency filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, who on 26 September 2025 allowed the revision and directed remand to police custody (later modified to 13–15 October 2025). The accused challenged that direction before the Telangana High Court which dismissed their criminal petition on 13 October 2025. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter.

The Supreme Court analysed Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 167 CrPC) and observed that for offences not punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years or more, the statutory custody period was forty days. The Court found that the Magistrate had recorded recoveries — laptops, hard disks, CPUs, routers and mobile devices — and had conducted extensive interrogation, which the Sessions Judge and High Court failed to reckon with when directing police remand months later. The Court relied on precedent including Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat (2014) 14 SCC 434 to emphasise that when bail stands, police remand should not be ordered without first seeking cancellation of bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the revisional and High Court orders were perverse, set them aside and allowed the appeal. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 75 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.16536 of 2025)
Case Title: Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment
For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported judgment

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 176