Inadmissibility of police custody solely for recording confessional statements

Seeking police custody remand primarily for the purpose of recording detailed confessional statements of the accused is legally unacceptable and perverse on the face of the record. Confessional statements made to police officers while in custody carry restricted evidentiary value under the law of evidence and cannot serve as the sole justification for curtailing personal liberty. When investigating authorities have already seized the primary physical, electronic, or digital devices relevant to the crime under cover of proper panchanamas, further custodial interrogation merely to extract confessions is unwarranted. Courts must strictly distinguish between genuine investigative needs—such as discovering unknown facts—and mere attempts to obtain custodial admissions. Granting police remand solely to facilitate coerced or repetitive custodial questioning violates basic principles of criminal fairness. Therefore, orders directing police remand for the isolated objective of recording confessions must be set aside as legally unsustainable. (Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana | 2026 INSC 75)