{"id":391823,"date":"2026-07-29T16:30:27","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T11:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=391823"},"modified":"2026-07-29T16:09:01","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T10:39:01","slug":"sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The appeal arose from the investigation into an alleged custodial death, challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated 7 July 2026 partly modifying the Magistrate’s directions granting police custody of the respondent-accused subject to extensive conditions, thus, examining the permissible extent of judicial regulation of police custody and custodial interrogation under the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS). The Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*<\/span>, JJ., held that<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    While safeguards against custodial violence are inherent in Article 21 and deserve to be preserved, conditions regulating police custody cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the statutory purpose of investigation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Confining interrogation exclusively to prison held “unworkable and unjustified” where recovery of dead body, CCTV hard disks and discoveries under Section 23<\/a>, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/a> (BSA) were yet to be effected.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a> permits police custody, not exceeding an aggregate of 15 days, to be granted in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of detention. Courts cannot prematurely foreclose that discretion.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Section 38<\/a> BNSS<\/a> entitles arrested person to meet an advocate during interrogation but does not contemplate continuous physical presence throughout interrogation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Directions regarding continuous audio-visual recording of interrogation and recovery proceedings are salutary safeguard, but uninterrupted videography of transit was impracticable direction.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Consequently, the Court modified the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court and issued the several directions permitting investigating agency to conduct custodial interrogation at designated interrogation centre subject to constitutional safeguards.<\/p>\n

    Also Read: “Abhorrent, Degrading, and Unknown to Law”; Supreme Court Declares Imposition of Bail Conditions Such as Cleaning of Police Stations as Null and Void<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

    In the instant matter, the respondent, an Inspector of Police, was implicated for the alleged custodial death. According to the prosecution, the deceased was apprehended by the Task Force personnel at Markapur at about 3.00 a.m. on 6 May 2026 and was brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada at about 7.00 a.m., where he was formally handed over to the respondent. It was alleged that although several witnesses had seen the victim inside the police station with visible injuries, he was never produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.<\/p>\n

    The victim’s mother subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. During those proceedings, it was alleged that the respondent suppressed the fact that the victim had been apprehended and kept in police custody. The respondent was thereafter placed under suspension. On 19 June 2026, the victim’s mother lodged a complaint alleging illegal detention, custodial torture resulting in death, disappearance of the body and destruction of evidence. Acting upon the complaint, a FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 127(4)<\/a>, 127(6)<\/a>, 103(1)<\/a> and 238<\/a>, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNS).<\/p>\n

    The investigation further disclosed that no CCTV footage was available for the crucial period during which the deceased was allegedly kept in custody. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the State Government, and the respondent was arrested on 23 June 2026 before being remanded to judicial custody.<\/p>\n

    The SIT sought 12 days’ police custody under Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a> for tracing the missing body, identifying other accused, recovering material evidence, confronting the respondent with falsified official records and reconstructing the crime scene. The Magistrate granted 8 days’ police custody but subjected the remand to extensive conditions requiring interrogation inside the Central Prison, continuous videography, preservation of CCTV footage, presence of the accused’s advocate within sight throughout interrogation, and an absolute prohibition against extension of police custody beyond the specified period.<\/p>\n

    The State challenged these conditions before the High Court. Although the High Court permitted the SIT to take the accused outside the prison for recovery and reconstruction of the crime scene, it substantially retained the remaining safeguards. Aggrieved thereby, the State approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

    Issues for Determination<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate and substantially affirmed by the High Court impermissibly interfered with the investigating agency’s statutory right to conduct custodial interrogation?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Whether Section 38<\/a> BNSS<\/a> entitles an accused to have an advocate continuously present throughout interrogation?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Whether continuous videography of every movement of an accused, including transit, legally sustainable?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    4. \n

      Whether a Magistrate can impose an absolute restriction preventing extension of police custody irrespective of the statutory scheme under Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Also Read: Pre-Trial Incarceration Beyond 11 Months Unwarranted Where Strict Bail Conditions Can Adequately Safeguard Prosecution’s Interests; SC Grants Bail<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

      Analysis<\/p>\n

      At the outset, the Court clarified that the controversy before it was confined to the legality and practical workability of the conditions regulating police custody and it was not examining the merits of the allegations against the respondent or the investigation itself.<\/p>\n

      Impracticable Conditions Can’t Render Police Custody Illusory<\/p>\n

      The Court accepted the State’s contention that the restrictions imposed by the courts below had created genuine obstacles to effective custodial investigation. At the same time, it recognised that the respondent’s apprehension regarding his safety had already been addressed by the High Court through directions prohibiting threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault and third-degree methods and observed that:<\/p>\n

      “Needless to say, that the burden would be on the SIT to ensure all these safeguards irrespective of the impugned orders as these conditions are inherently provided in Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

      The Court also noted that responsibility for ensuring the respondent’s safety had already been placed jointly upon the investigating officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police, the members of the SIT and the Jail Superintendent. In these circumstances, the Court held that additional restrictions which substantially impaired investigation were not justified.<\/p>\n

      Examining whether interrogation could lawfully be confined to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the Court answered in negative. It noted that alleged custodial death had occurred in and around Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada; the deceased’s body remained untraced; the original hard disks of the CCTV system were yet to be recovered; and the prosecution specifically asserted that discoveries under Section 23<\/a> BSA<\/a> were imminent if the respondent was properly interrogated. It asserted that in these circumstances, requiring the investigating officer to interrogate the respondent from a prison situated nearly 160 km away was neither practical nor conducive to investigation. Therefore, the Court held that confining the entirety of custodial interrogation to the Central Prison was “neither justified nor sustainable on the facts of this case”.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a> — Interpretation of<\/p>\n

      The Court examined the effect of Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a>, observing that the statutory scheme under the BNSS marks a significant departure from the position that prevailed under Section 167<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC). It pointed out that Section 187(2) and (3)<\/a> BNSS<\/a> permits police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding 15 days, to be granted in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of the permissible period of detention, instead of restricting police custody to the first 15 days of remand as under CrPC<\/a>. According to the Court, this legislative change was consciously introduced to cater to situations where fresh facts, discoveries or investigative leads emerge at a later stage of investigation, thereby necessitating further custodial interrogation.<\/p>\n

      Against this backdrop, the Court held that Condition 28.15 imposed by the Magistrate, which stipulated that “under no circumstances shall the period of police custody granted under this order be extended”, could not be sustained. Such a condition prematurely foreclosed the statutory discretion available under Section 187<\/a> BNSS<\/a> and therefore could not be sustained. It stated that<\/p>\n

      “This legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of investigation warranting further custodial interrogation, and an unduly rigid or premature foreclosure of that statutory window, whether by a Magistrate or by a court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, would run counter to the object of the provision.”<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court declared that it was “unable to sustain Condition 28.15”, since it placed “an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody” irrespective of what the investigation might subsequently reveal.<\/p>\n

      Right to Meet Advocate During Interrogation — Scope of Section 38<\/a> BNSS<\/a><\/p>\n

      The Court noted that Section 38<\/a> BNSS<\/a>, which provides that an arrested person “shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation”.<\/span> It noted that the provision makes it clear that right guaranteed Section 38<\/a> BNSS<\/a> was “the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained”.<\/span><\/p>\n

      However, the Court did not find fault with every safeguard imposed by the Magistrate. It approved Conditions 28.1—28.3, 28.8 and 28.10 insofar as they permitted the accused to nominate advocates and ensured that the advocate remained within sight without communicating with or interfering in the interrogation and described them as “unobjectionable” and “salutary”.<\/p>\n

      Videography of Custodial Interrogation<\/p>\n

      The Court accepted that audio-visual recording of custodial interrogation “are salutary and ought ordinarily to be retained so as to protect both the accused, against any allegation of coercion, and the investigating agency, against any unfounded allegation of impropriety”.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Nevertheless, the Court held that the High Court’s direction requiring uninterrupted videography of every movement of the accused, including the 3-hour journey between Rajamahendravaram and Vijayawada, was wholly impracticable. Explaining that the safeguard must be understood in a realistic manner, it stated that<\/p>\n

      “What the safeguard requires is that the interrogation itself, that is, the actual questioning of, or interaction with, the respondent-accused be continuously and contemporaneously recorded; the requirement cannot extend to an inflexible mandate to record every minute of transit, which is a totally logistical exercise.”<\/p>\n

      Apprehension Regarding the Respondent’s Safety<\/p>\n

      With regards to respondent’s argument that during his tenure as a police officer, he had arrested several criminals who were presently lodged in prisons at Vijayawada and that his life would therefore be endangered if he were taken there for custodial interrogation, the Court found no material on record, apart from the respondent’s bare assertion, to substantiate this apprehension.<\/p>\n

      The Court held that the concern could adequately be addressed by directing that interrogation outside the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram should take place at the designated interrogation centre of the SIT or any equivalent secure facility under police control. Simultaneously, the officers concerned would continue to remain jointly and severally responsible for ensuring the respondent’s safety throughout the period of police custody.<\/p>\n

      Also Read: “Liberty granted through bail remains illusory as he is still languishing in jail”; Kerala HC permits consolidated bail bonds for accused in CSR Funds Scam<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

      Decision<\/p>\n

      Allowing the appeal, the Court modified the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court and issued the following directions:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n

        Police custody would commence from the date of production of the respondent before the Magistrate pursuant to the judgment and would continue for 7 days, ensuring that the total period of police custody, including the custody already granted, did not exceed 15 days.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      2. \n

        The investigating officer would have unrestricted access to the respondent during police custody for the purposes of interrogation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      3. \n

        The restriction confining interrogation exclusively to the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram was set aside. The respondent could be interrogated at the SIT’s designated interrogation centre or any equivalent police facility at Vijayawada.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      4. \n

        Audio-visual recording of interrogation and recovery\/discovery proceedings was retained, but uninterrupted videography of the accused’s transit between locations was expressly dispensed with.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      5. \n

        The investigating agency was directed not to subject the respondent to threat, inducement, coercion, physical assault, mental harassment or third-degree methods.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      6. \n

        The accused’s lawyer could remain at a place from where he could see the accused but would not be permitted to intervene in the investigation “at any cost”.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      7. \n

        Original CCTV footage and videographic recordings, accompanied by the certificate under Section 63<\/a> BSA<\/a> (Section 65-B<\/a>, Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>), were directed to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate after completion of police custody.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      8. \n

        The investigating officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, SIT members and the officer in charge of the facility where the respondent was lodged were made jointly and severally responsible for ensuring his safety throughout police custody.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      9. \n

        The SIT to conduct a fair, impartial and scientific investigation uninfluenced by any observations made either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court in disposing of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Also Read: Magistrate Cannot Impose Foreign Travel Restriction Years After Grant of Bail by “Clarifying” Original Order: Delhi High Court<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

        [State of A.P.<\/span> v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju<\/span>, 2026 INSC 744, decided on 27-7-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

        *Judgment Authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

        Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

        For the Petitioner:<\/span> Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Suhail Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Parv Arora, Adv.<\/p>\n

        For the Respondent:<\/span> Mr. L Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. C Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Bharat J Joshi, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The Court modified the impugned condition and directed that an advocate would be permitted to remain at a place from where he could see the respondent but would not be permitted to intervene in the investigation “at any cost”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":391824,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[13681,32315,31267,102839,2583,55486,34871,30521,111042,83185,108220,5363,111043],"class_list":["post-391823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-article-21","tag-custodial-death","tag-custodial-interrogation","tag-custodial-safeguards","tag-Investigation","tag-justice-sandeep-mehta","tag-justice-vikram-nath","tag-police-custody","tag-right-to-counsel","tag-section-187-bnss","tag-section-38-bnss","tag-supreme-court","tag-videography-of-interrogation"],"yoast_head":"\nSC Modified Impracticable Police Custody Conditions | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2125,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Article 21\",\"Custodial Death\",\"custodial interrogation\",\"custodial safeguards\",\"Investigation\",\"Justice Sandeep Mehta\",\"Justice Vikram Nath\",\"police custody\",\"Right to Counsel\",\"Section 187 BNSS\",\"Section 38 BNSS\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Videography of Interrogation\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC Modified Impracticable Police Custody Conditions | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Conditions for police custody\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/29\\\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Modified Impracticable Police Custody Conditions | SCC Times","description":"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions","og_description":"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions","datePublished":"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/"},"wordCount":2125,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp","keywords":["Article 21","Custodial Death","custodial interrogation","custodial safeguards","Investigation","Justice Sandeep Mehta","Justice Vikram Nath","police custody","Right to Counsel","Section 187 BNSS","Section 38 BNSS","Supreme Court","Videography of Interrogation"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/","name":"SC Modified Impracticable Police Custody Conditions | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-29T11:00:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"SC holds Section 38 BNSS gives the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, not continuous presence, and modifies impracticable custody conditions.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Conditions for police custody"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/29\/sc-modified-impracticable-police-custody-conditions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Section 38 BNSS Confers Right to Meet, Not Continuous Presence of Advocate During Interrogation: SC Modifies Police Custody Conditions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Conditions-for-police-custody.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=391823"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":391827,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391823\/revisions\/391827"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/391824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=391823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=391823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=391823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}