Key development in AP custodial torture case! : AP High Court Extends Interim Relief to IPS Sunil Naik in Custodial Torture Case, Orders Daily Appearance Before Investigating Officer
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to Bihar cadre IPS officer Sunil Naik, who currently serves as Inspector General of Police (IGP). The relief was provided in connection with allegations of custodial torture made by Deputy Speaker K Raghu Ramakrishna Raju.
Issuing the order, Justice Venkata Jyothirmayee Prathapa directed Naik to present himself before the investigating officer no later than March 5 and to continue appearing on a daily basis until further instructions are given. The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on March 9.
Case Background
The case originates from a complaint filed by Deputy Speaker Raju, who alleged that officers of the Crime Investigation Department (CID) subjected him to custodial torture with the intent to kill. Acting on his complaint, the Guntur police registered a case.
At the time of the alleged incident, Naik was serving as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Andhra Pradesh CID while on deputation to the state under the previous government.
Recently, Andhra Pradesh police attempted to arrest Naik, but their efforts were unsuccessful after a Patna court refused to grant a transit warrant. Following this setback, Naik approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Arguments Presented
Defense Counsel: Senior advocate Parameswar, appearing for Naik, argued that the case was politically motivated. He emphasized that Naik’s name was not included in the FIR and pointed out that other senior officials had not been arrested. He further contended that Naik’s role was limited to executing Raju’s arrest and transferring him from Hyderabad to Mangalagiri as part of official duty. According to him, witness statements only confirmed Naik’s presence but did not implicate him in torture.
Prosecution Counsel: Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the police, countered that the Patna magistrate had rejected the transit warrant due to procedural lapses. He highlighted that Naik had previously given an undertaking before the Bihar High Court to cooperate with the investigation, but failed to disclose this in his anticipatory bail plea—amounting to suppression of facts.
Luthra further argued that custodial interrogation was essential to determine who was present during the alleged incident and who bore responsibility for the torture. He also reminded the Court that Naik’s earlier anticipatory bail plea had been rejected by the Guntur court, citing lack of cooperation with investigators.
Court’s Observations and Directions
After hearing both sides, Justice Jyothirmayee observed that it is not mandatory for all accused persons to be named at the FIR stage. Granting interim relief, the Court balanced protection with accountability by directing Naik to appear before the investigating officer daily until further orders.
The matter will be revisited on March 9, marking a significant development in the ongoing custodial torture case. The Court’s order reflects its effort to ensure cooperation with the investigation while safeguarding due process for the accused officer.
