Published Oct 16, 2026 | 2:06 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 16, 2026 | 2:38 PM
Gade Sai Krishna and his mother Vijaya Lakshmi. (Screengrab/ X)
Synopsis: The Andhra Pradesh High Court transferred the Gade Saikrishna custodial death case to the CBI and directed the state government to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation to his mother within four weeks. The case was being investigated by an SIT, which had come under fire over allegations of lapses, including its failure to adequately examine the alleged role of senior police officials.
In a major development in the Gade Saikrishna custodial death case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday, October 16, ordered the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court also ordered the state government to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to Saikrishna’s mother within four weeks.
The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI inquiry into the case, which was being investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Andhra government. The SIT investigation had come under fire over allegations of lapses, including its failure to adequately examine the role of senior police officials.
The Gade Saikrishna case came to light in May 2026, after he went missing following his detention by the Vijayawada Police Commissioners Task Force (CTF). According to the chargesheet submitted by the SIT, the Task Force police took him into custody from the Markapuram area on May 6, based on pending non-bailable warrants. He was subsequently brought to the Krishnalanka Police Station in Vijayawada. According to the chargesheet, Saikrishna died due to police torture on the night of May 12.
Questions were raised over the SIT’s failure to name in its chargesheet the Police Commissioner under whose control the Task Force operated.
The CBI is expected to examine the SIT report, the FIR, statements of the accused, and other evidence.
The central agency will also investigate the circumstances under which Saikrishna was taken into custody, what transpired at the police station, why his whereabouts remained unknown, and the evidence related to his body or cremation. The reasons for the unavailability of CCTV footage will also come under scrutiny.
Also Read: Sai Krishna custodial death case: SC stays HC proceedings; to directly monitor investigation
On June 4, Saikrishna’s mother, Gade Vijayalakshmi, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Andhra HC, seeking an order directing the authorities to produce her son before the court. The court ordered that he be produced by June 15.
The case subsequently drew political attention, with YSRCP president Jagan Mohan Reddy meeting and consoling the family. Following this, Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu also met and consoled Saikrishna’s mother.
On June 19, a case was registered over Saikrishna’s disappearance. The then Circle Inspector of Krishnalanka Police Station, S.S.V.V. Nagaraju, was suspended, booked in connection with the case and arrested. Six others, including police constables, were also arrested.
The state government subsequently constituted an SIT to investigate the case. The team examined police station records, statements from the personnel concerned and other evidence.
While the SIT investigation was underway, YSRCP MP Maddila Gurumoorthy sought a separate inquiry into the role of senior police officials in the custodial death. He filed a private complaint before a court in Vijayawada, seeking an investigation into the roles of State Director General of Police Harish Kumar Gupta, Vijayawada Police Commissioner S.V. Rajasekhara Babu, South Zone ACP K. Manasa and other officers.
The lower court ordered the recording of statements from the complainant and witnesses. ACP Manasa challenged the order in the High Court, arguing that the SIT was already investigating the case and raising legal objections to the continuation of proceedings on the private complaint.
On August 13, the High Court issued interim orders staying further proceedings in the Vijayawada court. Gurumoorthy subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the halt to the inquiry into the role of senior police officers.
On September 23, the Supreme Court heard Gurumoorthy’s petition. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta raised concerns over several aspects of the case.
The bench questioned why Saikrishna had not been produced before a magistrate after being taken into custody and why an FIR had not been registered promptly despite a complaint about his disappearance. It also sought explanations regarding the unavailability of CCTV footage from the police station and the whereabouts of Saikrishna’s body.
Although the state government maintained that the SIT investigation had been completed and the accused arrested, the petitioner’s counsel argued that questions about the involvement of senior police officials remained unanswered.
The Supreme Court directed that the case records be submitted in a sealed cover. It also imposed interim restrictions on related High Court proceedings and impleaded the CBI as a respondent in the petition.
By the time the Supreme Court intervened, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had concluded hearings and reserved its judgment on the habeas corpus petition filed by Saikrishna’s mother and the petition seeking a CBI inquiry.
On September 24, the Supreme Court adjourned the next hearing to October 26. The bench said that further decisions on the investigation would depend on the High Court’s ruling.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
