High Court Grants Custody of Suspended CI Nagaraju to SIT, Overrules Lower Court Restriction

VIJAYAWADA, July 7, 2026 – In a significant legal development regarding the ongoing investigation into the case against suspended Circle Inspector (CI) Nagaraju, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday granted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) eight days of police custody. This ruling effectively overturns a previous directive from a lower court that had confined the interrogation to the confines of a prison.

The High Court’s order, issued late Tuesday evening, empowers the SIT to transport the accused to the Krishnalanka Police Station in Vijayawada. This move is expected to facilitate a more rigorous investigative process, including scene reconstruction and the gathering of material evidence, which officials argue were hindered by the limitations of prison-based interrogation.

Main Facts: The Legal Tug-of-War

The case centers on the conduct of CI Nagaraju, who was suspended following serious allegations that prompted an exhaustive probe by the SIT. The central point of contention in the recent legal proceedings was not the custody itself—which both courts agreed was necessary—but the location and conditions of that custody.

The Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court had initially granted the SIT eight days of police custody on the condition that the questioning be conducted exclusively within the walls of the Rajahmundry Central Prison. The SIT, unsatisfied with this restriction, immediately challenged the order in the High Court. They argued that effective investigation, specifically the reconstruction of crime scenes and the collection of physical evidence, could not be conducted within the sterile and restricted environment of a correctional facility.

The High Court, presided over by a single-judge bench, ruled in favor of the SIT. Recognizing the necessity of a thorough investigation, the court permitted the transfer of the accused to the Krishnalanka Police Station. However, as a safeguard to ensure transparency and prevent allegations of custodial misconduct, the court mandated that all questioning and investigative activities must be videographed in their entirety.

Chronology of Events

To understand the gravity of the situation, one must look at the timeline of events leading up to this week’s High Court intervention:

• Initial Allegations: Following public outcry and preliminary internal reports, allegations against CI Nagaraju were formally registered, leading to his immediate suspension from service.
• Arrest and Judicial Remand: Upon the commencement of the SIT investigation, CI Nagaraju was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody, where he was transferred to Rajahmundry Central Prison.
• The First Custody Plea: The SIT petitioned the Second Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court for police custody to further their inquiry.
• The Lower Court Order: The magistrate granted the request but imposed a strict geographic constraint, mandating that the custody take place within the prison premises.
• The High Court Appeal: Challenging the logistical constraints of the lower court’s order, the SIT filed a revision petition in the High Court, emphasizing the "investigative necessity" of transporting the accused.
• The Final Ruling (July 7, 2026): The High Court granted the eight-day police custody in Vijayawada, balancing the needs of the investigators with the rights of the accused through the mandate of videographic documentation.

Supporting Data and Procedural Context

The shift from Rajahmundry to Vijayawada is not merely a logistical change; it is a tactical pivot in the investigation. Under Indian criminal procedure, police custody (often referred to as "remand") is distinct from judicial custody. While judicial custody ensures the accused is held securely by the state to prevent tampering with evidence, police custody is specifically intended for the purpose of "interrogation and recovery."

Legal experts note that the SIT’s insistence on moving the accused to the Krishnalanka station suggests that investigators possess specific leads that require the physical presence of the accused at identified locations. Whether it involves recovering hidden documents, digital devices, or re-tracing the movements of the accused during the alleged incident, the police station serves as a base of operations that the prison cannot replicate.

Furthermore, the High Court’s insistence on videography aligns with recent Supreme Court guidelines aimed at curbing custodial violence and ensuring that the investigation remains unimpeachable during trial. By creating a digital trail of the eight-day window, the court is effectively insulating the SIT’s findings from future claims of coercion or evidence fabrication.

Official Responses and Stakeholder Perspectives

The SIT has remained largely tight-lipped regarding the specific details of the evidence they hope to uncover, maintaining the confidentiality necessary for an active probe. However, sources within the police department have indicated that the "Vijayawada transfer" was vital. "An investigation of this nature requires the accused to be in an environment where we can effectively confront him with witnesses and digital evidence," a senior official stated on condition of anonymity.

Conversely, the defense counsel for CI Nagaraju had initially argued that the prison setting was sufficient for questioning, hinting at concerns regarding the safety and well-being of their client. The defense had contended that moving the accused to a police station exposed him to unnecessary risk. The High Court, however, determined that the videography mandate provided sufficient protection for the accused, effectively neutralizing the defense’s primary objection to the transfer.

Implications: A Precedent for Future Investigations

The ruling carries broader implications for the administrative and legal framework in Andhra Pradesh.

1. Strengthening the SIT’s Mandate

By overruling the magistrate’s restriction, the High Court has affirmed that investigative agencies must be granted the latitude required to conduct a thorough inquiry. It signals that if an agency can prove the necessity of a specific venue for the sake of justice, the court will facilitate that request.

2. The Rise of Videographic Documentation

This case serves as a model for future custody hearings. The court’s insistence on a video record suggests a growing trend of "technological oversight" in the Indian judiciary. As digital evidence becomes more central to criminal law, the requirement for recording custodial interrogations may soon become a standard practice rather than an exceptional mandate.

3. Public Trust and Institutional Integrity

The suspension and subsequent arrest of a Circle Inspector—a position of significant authority—have put the police force under a microscope. The transparency mandated by the High Court is a critical step in maintaining public trust. If the SIT can produce a clean, documented investigation that stands up to scrutiny in court, it will go a long way in demonstrating that no individual is above the law, regardless of their rank within the force.

4. Judicial Balancing Act

The decision underscores the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between granting the state enough power to investigate crime and ensuring the protection of human rights. By allowing the custody but demanding the video record, the court has effectively checked the power of the police while simultaneously ensuring that the investigation is not unnecessarily throttled by bureaucratic or location-based hurdles.

Conclusion

As the eight-day clock begins to tick following the transfer of CI Nagaraju to Vijayawada, the eyes of the public and the legal community remain fixed on the SIT. The success of this investigation will not only hinge on what is uncovered during the interrogation but also on the integrity of the process.

With the High Court’s order, the investigation has moved into a high-stakes phase. The next week will be decisive in determining whether the allegations against the suspended CI can be substantiated with the rigor required to move toward a formal charge sheet. For now, the legal path is clear: the SIT has its time, it has its location, and, thanks to the High Court’s directive, the entire process will be under the unblinking eye of the camera. The proceedings at the Krishnalanka police station will likely set the tone for the upcoming trial and the future trajectory of this high-profile case.