Judgements

Andhra Pradesh High Court Transfers Sai Krishna Custodial Death Investigation to CBI, Awards ₹25 Lakh Relief to Bereaved Mother

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 20 October 2026 · 5 min read
Andhra Pradesh High Court Transfers Sai Krishna Custodial Death Investigation to CBI, Awards ₹25 Lakh Relief to Bereaved Mother

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to assume full charge of the inquiry into the death of 25-year-old Gade Sai Krishna, who died while allegedly subjected to severe police torture in May 2024. A Division Bench held that the state police apparatus could not ensure an untainted and impartial inquiry, citing substantial evidentiary anomalies—most notably missing station CCTV footage—and potential shielding of senior officers. Alongside the transfer of the probe from the state-appointed Special Investigation Team, the Bench instructed the Andhra Pradesh government to disburse an interim compensation of ₹25 lakh to the victim's mother, Gade Vijayalakshmi, within four weeks.

Legal Topic

  • Area of Law: Constitutional Law / Criminal Procedure

  • Sub-topic: Custodial Violence / Transfer of Investigation / Public Law Remedy for Violation of Article 21

Core Legal Issue

The core legal question before the High Court was whether the investigation conducted by a state-appointed Special Investigation Team met the constitutional benchmark of fairness, independence, and transparency when lower-level police personnel stood accused of custodial murder and senior police leadership faced allegations of complicity or procedural cover-up.

The court had to determine whether the circumstances warranted the invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to transfer an ongoing criminal inquiry to an independent agency (the CBI) and whether the state bore strict liability under public law to award interim monetary restitution for an egregious infringement of the fundamental right to life.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Division Bench allowed the supplementary petition filed by the victim's mother and stripped the state police and the SIT of their investigative mandate over the case.

Key determinations and directives include:

  • Transfer to CBI: The Central Bureau of Investigation was ordered to take over all case dockets, records, and charge-sheets from the SIT and conduct an unfettered probe into the custodial torture, death, and possible complicity or negligence of supervising supervisory police officials.

  • Interim Restitution: The state government was directed to disburse ₹25 lakh directly to Vijayalakshmi within a strict deadline of four weeks as interim public law compensation.

  • Preservation and Scrutiny of Evidence: The Bench mandated an exhaustive forensic review into the loss or destruction of police station CCTV feeds and the circumstances surrounding Sai Krishna's informal detention.

  • Trial Status: While individual police personnel had been chargesheeted by the SIT, the broader accountability of superior command structures remains open and active under the newly assigned CBI mandate.

Key Legal Points

  • Institutional Impartiality and the "Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done" Test: An investigation into systemic police brutality cannot be entrusted to state police machinery where high-ranking personnel are potentially implicated or supervisory lapses are apparent, as an inherent institutional conflict of interest damages public trust.

  • Strict Public Law Liability for Custodial Torture: Custodial death represents a cardinal breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; sovereign immunity offers no defense against an interim award of compensatory damages to immediate kin.

  • Evidentiary Integrity of Param Legal Mandates: The failure to preserve or produce police station CCTV recordings directly violates the binding operational guidelines established by the Supreme Court of India in the Paramvir Singh Saini jurisprudence, raising a rebuttable adverse inference regarding illegal custody and ill-treatment.

Relevant Law

  • Constitution of India:

    • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, safeguarding individuals against state custodial brutality and torture.

    • Article 226: High Court's writ jurisdiction enabling the issuance of directions, orders, and transfer of criminal investigations to central agencies to enforce fundamental rights.

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):

    • Statutory provisions governing custodial remand, procedural inquests into deaths occurring in police custody, and the investigation of cognizable offenses.

  • Judicial Precedents:

    • Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. (2021): Mandatory installation and preservation of CCTV infrastructure in police stations.

    • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Recognition of monetary compensation as a distinct public law remedy for custodial death.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Gade Vijayalakshmi): Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sai Krishna had been illegally detained and assaulted to death by Task Force personnel. It was argued that the investigation by the state-led SIT was selective, pointing out that missing police station CCTV recordings were conveniently disregarded and that the inquiry purposefully halted at mid-level personnel to insulate higher-ranking supervisory officers and district police leadership from scrutiny.

Respondent (State of Andhra Pradesh): The State submitted that it had acted promptly by constituting an independent Special Investigation Team led by a senior Inspector General of Police. The State contended that the SIT had conducted a comprehensive inquiry, leading to the arrest and chargesheeting of seven police personnel, including an Inspector. It was maintained that the investigation was complete, adequate safeguards had been observed, and a transfer to a central agency was unnecessary.

Why Does It Matter?

Custodial torture remains one of the most persistent vulnerabilities in Indian criminal justice administration. This ruling underscores that the state cannot neutralize demands for accountability merely by setting up an internal SIT and arresting frontline personnel when higher-echelon command responsibility is in question.

By grounding its order in missing surveillance infrastructure, the judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s oversight mandates on police station CCTV compliance, sending a clear operational signal to police departments that unexplained "camera blind spots" during custodial deaths will expose state agencies to severe judicial scrutiny and the loss of investigative jurisdiction.

Legal Takeaway

Custodial death is an indefensible violation of Article 21 that triggers immediate strict liability for monetary compensation from the state. Where an internal police investigation leaves questions of command responsibility and lost station surveillance unresolved, High Courts will exercise their writ powers to hand the inquiry over to an independent federal agency to ensure accountability.

Sources

  • Primary Source: Judgment and Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the Writ Petition regarding the custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna (delivered October 2024 / reported October 2026).

  • Additional Sources: Case records, SIT investigation disclosures, and High Court proceedings reported across Indian legal and national news outlets.

Related reporting