Protection of personal liberty against mechanical custodial orders

Personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be compromised through casual or mechanical judicial orders permitting police remand without compelling justification. When an accused person has been granted bail, any subsequent judicial direction that forces them back into custody—even for a brief duration of two or three days—has severe ramifications on their fundamental liberty. Courts considering remand requisitions must demonstrate rigorous scrutiny and assign weighty, convincing reasons as to why the investigation cannot proceed without physical custody. Vague assertions by the police regarding the need to record detailed confessional statements or explore hypothetical recoveries do not justify curtailing personal freedom once bail has been granted. Higher courts must step in to correct lower court orders that treat personal liberty lightly by granting routine custody remands. Upholding the sanctity of personal liberty requires courts to reject custodial demands that lack extraordinary and demonstrable necessity. Therefore, procedural mechanisms governing remand must always be interpreted in favor of safeguarding individual liberty against arbitrary state action. (Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana | 2026 INSC 75)