Patna Court Rejects Transit Remand for IPS Officer in Raghurama Raju Case

Efforts by Andhra Pradesh police to take senior IPS officer Sunil Kumar Nayak into custody in Patna hit a legal roadblock on Monday after a local court refused transit remand, citing procedural lapses. The Bihar-cadre officer, currently serving as Inspector General (IG), Fire and Home Guards, was detained from his official residence in connection with allegations of custodial torture involving Andhra Pradesh Assembly Deputy Speaker K. Raghurama Krishna Raju . The court’s intervention and his subsequent release have added a fresh legal twist to a politically sensitive case.

Patna SP City (East) Bhanu Pratap Singh said the Andhra Pradesh police picked up Nayak around 6 a.m. and later sought local assistance to produce him before the court. During proceedings, Patna Police informed the court that no prior intimation had been given. The court also noted the absence of an arrest warrant and case diary, terming these lapses serious enough to deny transit remand. It ruled that Nayak would not be treated as having been arrested.

The early-morning detention triggered brief tension outside the officer’s residence as Home Guards personnel protested the manner in which he was taken away. Local police intervened and restored order. Officials said no case has been filed over the incident, though administrative review is underway.

The case stems from a 2024 FIR filed by Raghurama Krishna Raju, who alleged he was subjected to custodial torture after his arrest in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Then the Narsapuram MP, he had been arrested by CID officials for alleged derogatory remarks against then Chief minister Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy . Nayak, who was serving as DIG, CID on inter-cadre deputation, is accused of supervising the arrest.

The complaint invokes serious charges, including attempt to murder , criminal conspiracy, and abuse of authority. The case has gained renewed momentum after the TDP-led alliance assumed power in 2024, giving it clear political overtones.

Legal experts note that custodial torture violates Article 21 protections and Supreme Court safeguards. As investigators examine records and testimonies, the case raises larger questions about police accountability, due process, and the rule of law.