Police custody is limited to 15 days, not 60 or 90. Know the remand rules under Section 187 BNSS and the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling protecting an accused’s liberty.
NEW DELHI: An FIR is registered. A man is arrested. The investigating officer tells his family he can remain in custody for 60, or even 90, days under the new criminal laws.
The family panics. The accused fears prolonged interrogation. But what does the law actually permit?
Under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), police custody is limited to 15 days in aggregate. It is not 40, 60 or 90 days.
However, the BNSS has introduced an important change. These 15 days of police remand can be granted in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the applicable investigation-remand period.
This change has significant implications for arrested persons, especially those facing criminal allegations arising from matrimonial disputes, relationship breakdowns or other contentious proceedings.
The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to statutory savings for pending proceedings.
Understanding the difference between police custody, judicial custody, remand and default bail is essential to protecting an accused person’s constitutional rights.
MAXIMUM POLICE CUSTODY UNDER SECTION 187 BNSS
Section 187 BNSS governs the procedure when police cannot complete an investigation within 24 hours of arrest.
Under Section 187(2) BNSS, a Magistrate can authorise police custody for up to 15 days in total, either continuously or in separate spells, within the applicable statutory window.
The law establishes four important time periods:
| Period | Legal significance |
| 24 hours | Ordinary constitutional limit for producing an arrested person before a Magistrate, excluding necessary journey time |
| 15 days | Maximum aggregate police custody under Section 187(2) |
| 40 or 60 days | Initial window within which those 15 days of police custody may be granted |
| 60 or 90 days | Ordinary investigation-remand limits relevant to statutory default bail |
The 90-day category applies where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 10 years or more.
Other offences ordinarily fall within the 60-day category.
The key distinction is that 40 or 60 days represent the permissible window for granting police remand, not the number of days police can keep an accused in their custody.
HOW DOES THE 15-DAY POLICE CUSTODY RULE WORK?
Under the earlier CrPC framework, police custody was ordinarily restricted to the first 15 days of remand.
Section 187 BNSS changes that timing.
Consider two hypothetical examples.
Example 1: an offence attracting the 60-day investigation period
A man is arrested and produced before a Magistrate. Police request seven days of custody for investigation.
The Magistrate grants five days.
After those five days, the accused is sent to judicial custody.
Later, within the initial 40-day statutory window, police seek further custody for another ten days.
The Magistrate may consider the application if sufficient lawful grounds exist.
But once the aggregate 15 days of police custody have been exhausted, the investigating agency cannot obtain additional police custody under the ordinary Section 187(2) framework for the same remand calculation.
Example 2: an offence attracting the 90-day investigation period
An accused faces an offence punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more.
The applicable initial police-remand window extends to 60 days.
Police may seek the permitted 15 days in different spells within that window, subject to judicial authorisation and compliance with the statutory requirements.
Neither example permits 40, 60 or 90 days of continuous police custody.
Every request must satisfy the Magistrate that further police custody is justified.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AN ARREST? THE 24-HOUR RULE
Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India provides a vital safeguard against arbitrary detention.
An arrested person must ordinarily be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding necessary travel time.
Section 58 BNSS reinforces this restriction.
The arresting police officer cannot independently extend custody beyond the prescribed period merely because interrogation remains incomplete.
Where further detention is required, police must approach the competent Magistrate under Section 187.
The officer must forward the accused along with the relevant case-diary entries, where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
The Magistrate must then examine whether further detention is lawful and necessary.
Police cannot treat FIR registration as unlimited authority to detain someone.
An allegation may trigger investigation. It does not suspend the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Special constitutional provisions concerning preventive detention operate under a different framework.
POLICE CUSTODY VS JUDICIAL CUSTODY: THE LEGAL DIFFERENCE
These two forms of custody serve different purposes.
What is police custody?
Police custody places the accused under the investigating agency’s control pursuant to a lawful remand order.
It may facilitate questioning and investigative steps requiring the accused’s presence.
However, police custody is not punishment. The accused retains constitutional and statutory protections, including safeguards against coercion and unlawful treatment.
What is judicial custody?
Judicial custody ordinarily means detention in prison under judicial authority rather than in a police lock-up.
Police cannot demand unrestricted access to an accused in judicial custody merely to continue interrogation.
A further police-remand request must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.
Under Section 187(4), the Magistrate must be shown the accused in person when police custody is first authorised and on subsequent occasions while the accused remains in police custody.
Further judicial custody may be extended upon production in person or through authorised audio-video electronic means.
Section 187(7) also requires a Magistrate granting police custody to record reasons.
A remand order is a judicial decision affecting liberty, not a routine endorsement of the police request.
SUPREME COURT 2026: POLICE CANNOT SEND AN ACCUSED BACK INTO CUSTODY WHILE BAIL REMAINS VALID
The Supreme Court has clarified that police remand cannot be used to bypass an existing bail order.
In Pogadadabnda Revathi & Anr. v. State of Telangana, 2026 INSC 75, decided on 9 January 2026, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta examined the legality of granting police custody nearly seven months after the accused secured bail.
The case originated from a Hyderabad cybercrime investigation involving offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Following their arrest in March 2025, police sought five days of custodial interrogation. However, on 17 March 2025, the Magistrate rejected the request, observing that substantial investigation, interrogation and recovery of electronic devices had already been completed. The accused were granted regular bail the same day.
Despite this, the Sessions Court subsequently ordered three days of police custody, and the Telangana High Court declined to interfere.
What did the lawyers argue before the Supreme Court?
Counsel for the accused challenged the fresh remand direction, arguing that the Magistrate had already rejected police custody through a reasoned order and that the accused continued to enjoy protection under an existing bail order.
The State of Telangana defended the Sessions Court’s decision as legally justified.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Court had overlooked the Magistrate’s reasoned findings and the fact that bail remained operative.
It held that directing police custody in these circumstances would effectively amount to indirect cancellation of bail without following the legally prescribed procedure.
The Court clarified that the investigating agency must first seek bail cancellation in accordance with law before applying for police custody.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Sessions Court and the Telangana High Court orders.
Importantly, the judgment also recognised the 15-day maximum aggregate police custody period under Section 187 BNSS, exercisable within the applicable initial 40-day or 60-day statutory window.
The legal position is clear: police cannot circumvent a valid bail order through a fresh remand application. Judicially granted liberty cannot be withdrawn without due process of law.
SUPREME COURT 2026: ARREST CANNOT BECOME AN INVESTIGATIVE SHORTCUT
Another important Supreme Court order came on 15 January 2026.
Case: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115.
The Supreme Court considered the arrest safeguards under Section 35 BNSS, particularly for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra submitted that arrest cannot be legally justified unless the conditions prescribed under Section 35(1)(b) are satisfied.
The Court examined the relationship between notices requiring appearance and the necessity of arrest.
It held that issuing a notice under Section 35(3) is the rule for the specified category of offences, while arrest under the relevant statutory provisions is the exception.
The Supreme Court further clarified that arrest must be based on objective necessity, not merely the investigating officer’s subjective convenience.
Even non-compliance with a notice does not automatically mandate arrest. The investigating agency must exercise its discretion lawfully.
This ruling builds upon the protections previously recognised in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The power to arrest and the necessity to arrest are two different legal questions.
A police officer may possess statutory authority to arrest, yet still be required to justify why arrest is necessary in the circumstances.
That distinction matters particularly when an accused is cooperating with the investigation.
WHAT CHANGED FROM SECTION 167 CRPC TO SECTION 187 BNSS?
The transition from CrPC to BNSS materially altered the timing of police remand.
In CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 167 CrPC and restricted police custody to the first 15-day remand period.
Beyond that initial period, continued detention during investigation ordinarily took the form of judicial custody.
Section 187 BNSS now expressly allows the aggregate 15 days of police custody to be taken in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days, depending on the applicable category.
The maximum remains 15 days, but the permissible window has expanded.
There is another important legal complication.
Under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, specified investigations and judicial proceedings pending immediately before 1 July 2024 are saved under the former CrPC framework.
In Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519, decided on 19 May 2026, the Supreme Court examined how this repeal-and-savings provision operates in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Court discussed how the procedural stage reached before the BNSS takes effect affects the new provisions’ applicability.
Therefore, the applicable procedural law in an older matter must be determined from the actual proceedings and statutory savings, not assumed merely from the date of an FIR.
CAN POLICE DEMAND CUSTODY WITHOUT PROVING WHY IT IS NECESSARY?
Police must place sufficient grounds before the competent court when seeking remand.
Section 187(1) requires relevant case-diary material to be transmitted when investigation cannot be completed within the initial 24-hour period.
The Magistrate must assess the request independently.
Key considerations include whether custodial interrogation is genuinely required, whether important investigative steps have already been completed, and whether the accused is protected by an existing bail order.
The court must also consider whether the statutory remand window remains open and how much police custody has already been utilised.
Section 187(7) expressly requires the Magistrate to record reasons for granting police custody.
The seriousness of an allegation is relevant, but it cannot replace the statutory assessment.
Police custody cannot lawfully be granted solely to create pressure, secure a confession or punish a person before trial.
DEFAULT BAIL UNDER SECTION 187(3) BNSS: WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 60 OR 90 DAYS?
Default bail is a statutory safeguard against prolonged detention based on investigation.
Under Section 187(3) BNSS, an accused may become entitled to default bail when the applicable investigation period expires without completion of the investigation in the legally required manner.
The ordinary periods are:
- 90 days: For offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more.
- 60 days: For other offences.
The accused must be prepared to furnish bail and satisfy the applicable statutory conditions.
Default bail should not be confused with regular bail.
Regular bail requires the court to consider the applicable bail factors. Default bail arises when the investigating agency fails to meet the prescribed statutory deadline.
In M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485, the Supreme Court explained the importance of timely assertion of the default-bail right.
Where the accused properly invokes an accrued default-bail right before the prosecution files the requisite report, subsequent filing does not ordinarily defeat that already-availed right.
However, if the accused does not invoke the right before a legally sufficient report is filed, the position can change.
The 60-day or 90-day period is generally calculated from the first judicial remand, not the date of arrest, subject to the applicable rules of computation.
Special statutes, including certain provisions under the NDPS Act and UAPA, may prescribe different investigation periods or conditions.
Default bail is an enforceable legal safeguard, not an automatic release from prison regardless of the circumstances.
WHAT CAN AN ACCUSED DO IF POLICE CUSTODY IS ILLEGAL?
An accused or their legal representative should promptly examine the arrest and remand records.
The following issues deserve immediate attention:
- legality of arrest: Check whether statutory arrest conditions were satisfied and the required reasons recorded.
- production before the Magistrate: Verify compliance with the constitutional 24-hour rule and the applicable remand procedure.
- Custody calculation: Examine previous police-remand orders and calculate the aggregate custody already authorised.
- reasons for further custody: Challenge requests unsupported by the case diary, investigative necessity or adequate grounds.
- Bail and judicial remedies: Consider regular bail, default bail where applicable, revision or other appropriate proceedings before the competent court.
An unlawful detention may also justify constitutional remedies, including habeas corpus in appropriate circumstances.
The appropriate remedy depends on the precise facts and the orders already passed.
WHY SECTION 187 BNSS MATTERS FOR MEN FACING CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS
A matrimonial dispute can lead to criminal accusations against a husband or his relatives. Relationship disputes may also lead to allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Every genuine complaint deserves lawful investigation.
But an allegation is not proof of guilt, and arrest is not a substitute for evidence.
The danger arises when custody is treated as leverage rather than a legally justified investigative measure.
Unnecessary detention can cause job loss, reputational damage, family disruption, and significant financial consequences, even before a court determines guilt.
Those consequences make procedural safeguards particularly important.
The principles recognised in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil and Pogadabanda Revathi demonstrate that courts must independently scrutinise the necessity of arrest and police remand.
They do not provide immunity from investigation or arrest where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
They provide safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
A man’s dignity does not disappear after an FIR. His constitutional rights do not depend on the complainant’s gender or the nature of the complaint.
A fair criminal justice system must investigate allegations seriously while protecting the presumption of innocence and requiring every deprivation of liberty to be justified by law.
CONCLUSION
The maximum police custody period under Section 187 BNSS is 15 days in aggregate.
These 15 days may be granted in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the applicable investigation-remand period.
The ordinary 60-day and 90-day limits concern detention during investigation and the associated default-bail framework. They do not permit 60 or 90 days of police custody.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 decisions reinforce the importance of justified arrest, reasoned remand orders and respect for existing bail protections.
For anyone facing arrest, the legal priority is to examine the relevant sections, remand orders, bail status and judicial precedents without delay.
An FIR authorises investigation, not punishment. A remand order must uphold the law, not rubber-stamp police demands.
FAQs
- What is the maximum police custody under BNSS 2026?
Under Section 187 BNSS, police custody cannot exceed 15 days in total, within the applicable 40-day or 60-day window. - Can police keep an accused in custody for 90 days?
Not in police custody. The 90-day limit concerns investigation-related detention for specified serious offences. - Can police demand custody after 15 days?
Yes, within the 40/60-day window, but only if the total police custody does not exceed 15 days and a Magistrate authorises it. - Can police arrest an accused again after bail?
Police cannot bypass valid bail through a fresh remand order. Bail cancellation requires due legal process. - When can an accused get default bail under BNSS?
Ordinarily, after 60 or 90 days, if the investigation is not completed as legally required and statutory bail conditions are met.
