The Supreme Court has raised serious questions about the investigation into the alleged custodial death and disappearance of Gade Sai Krishna in Andhra Pradesh. The court questioned the state government and police over the handling of the case, including the delay in registering an FIR and the reported deletion of CCTV footage from the police station.
Sai Krishna was reportedly taken into custody by a Special Task Force team during the night of May 5 and 6 while police were executing a non-bailable warrant. According to submissions before the Supreme Court, he was later handed over to the Krishna Lanka police but was not formally arrested or produced before a magistrate. His whereabouts subsequently became unknown.
His mother reportedly approached the Director General of Police on May 28 after he went missing, but an FIR was registered only on June 19. The Supreme Court questioned why there was such a delay and also raised concerns over the reported disappearance of CCTV footage from the relevant period.
The state government had formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case. Several police personnel have been named as accused, and the SIT has filed a chargesheet. The Andhra Pradesh government has argued that the SIT was established to ensure an impartial and transparent investigation.
The investigation has also produced allegations about what happened inside the police station. According to the SIT’s remand report, an accused identified as G. Suresh told investigators that he witnessed police personnel allegedly torturing Sai Krishna during interrogation and later saw him collapse and die. These are allegations recorded by investigators and remain subject to judicial proceedings.
Sai Krishna’s family has sought a CBI investigation, arguing that the state police investigation may not inspire sufficient confidence because police officials themselves are among those facing allegations. The Andhra Pradesh government has opposed transferring the case to the CBI, pointing to the ongoing SIT investigation and chargesheet.
During its recent hearing, the Supreme Court questioned whether the investigation had focused too heavily on lower-level officers while senior officials were not being examined with the same scrutiny. The court also directed the Andhra Pradesh High Court registrar general to send relevant records in a sealed cover.
The Supreme Court has not, however, ordered a CBI investigation in the case at this stage. On September 24, the court adjourned the related proceedings to October 26, after being informed that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had already heard the petitions seeking a CBI probe and had reserved its orders.
The case continues to raise questions about police accountability, the preservation of evidence and the safeguards required when a person is taken into custody. Further court proceedings will determine how the investigation should proceed and whether the request for a CBI probe will be accepted.