Supreme Court Overturns Police Custody Order for Hyderabad Journalists
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling by quashing a Telangana High Court order that permitted police custody for two women journalists from Hyderabad. The apex court's decision reinforces the legal principle that police custody cannot be granted when an accused is already on bail unless the bail is first cancelled through proper legal channels.
Background of the Case
The case involves Pogadadanda Revathi, managing director of the YouTube channel Pulse News, and journalist Bandi Sandhya. Both women were arrested by Hyderabad cyber crime police in March 2025 for allegedly circulating derogatory comments against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and the Telangana state government. Following their arrest, they were remanded to judicial custody.
Initially, a magistrate rejected the police request for five days of custody, noting that extensive investigation had already been conducted. The authorities had seized several electronic devices, including laptops, hard disks, CPUs, and a router. Consequently, the magistrate granted the journalists regular bail.
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
The state government challenged the magistrate's refusal of police custody before a sessions court. In September 2025, the sessions court allowed a short period of police remand. This order was then challenged before the Telangana High Court, which upheld the sessions court's decision in October 2025, granting police custody to the investigating agencies.
Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the two women journalists approached the Supreme Court, challenging the order that permitted their police custody while they were on bail.
Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling
Disposing of the petition on Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench made several crucial observations:
- The court held that police custody cannot be granted when an accused is already on bail unless the bail is first cancelled through proper legal process.
- It noted that the magistrate had exercised discretion after providing detailed reasons, and such orders should not normally be disturbed in revision unless shown to be grossly perverse.
- The bench pointed out that the sessions court overlooked earlier findings about completed recoveries and interrogation.
- It emphasized that the police custody order came over six months after bail was granted, making it legally questionable.
The Supreme Court ruled that sending the accused back into custody would effectively amount to an indirect cancellation of bail. It reiterated that the proper course for investigating agencies is to first seek cancellation of bail and only then request police remand.
Legal Implications and Final Decision
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the grant of police custody was legally unsustainable since the bail order remained in force and had not been challenged. The bench allowed the appeal of the two women journalists and set aside the lower court orders that had permitted police custody.
This judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal justice and protects individuals from arbitrary detention after being granted bail. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the proper legal pathways that must be followed when seeking custody of accused persons who have already been released on bail.
