In a significant decision whilst hearing a plea against the Patna High Court’s Order allowing for Narco-Analysis test by the SDPO, division bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, J. and Prasanna B. Varale, J. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given significant guidelines regards the narco-analysis test being held without the consent of the accused and upholding the tests laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, and has halted the forced narcotic tests. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also pointed out that whilst deciding a bail application, the High Courts need not enter into a roving enquiry or accept the use of investigative techniques. It pointed out that while entertaining a bail application, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations against the accused; period of custody undergone; nature of evidence and the crime in question.
This appeal arose from an interim order of the Patna High Court directing the conduct of narco-analysis tests on the accused, including the appellant, during the investigation into the disappearance of his wife. The appellant challenged this direction as unconstitutional and violative of his rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, relying upon the precedent laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka1.
FACTS OF THE CASE
An FIR was registered on 24th August 2022 against Amlesh Kumar (the husband) and his family under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC for alleged dowry demands and disappearance of his wife. The appellant claimed his wife went missing on 21st August 2022 while traveling to Ayodhya and that he lodged a missing complaint on 28th August 2022.His family members were granted bail, but his bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 1st August 2023.When he approached the High Court, it accepted the SDPO’s submission that narco-analysis tests would be conducted on all accused and witnesses, and adjourned the matter to 12th July 2024.Aggrieved, the appellant challenged this directive before the Supreme Court.
STATUTES INVOLVED
Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973; Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether, in the attending facts and circumstances, the High Court could have accepted such a submission?
- Whether a report of a voluntary narco-analysis test can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other evidence on record?
- Whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test, as a matter of an indefeasible right?
JUDGMENTS REFFERED
- Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka2 :Constitutionality of narco-analysis, lie detector, and brain mapping tests.
- Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat3: Cautioning against judicial overreach in bail applications.
- Vinobhai v. State of Kerala4: On evidentiary value of Section 27 Evidence Act.
- Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P.5: Disclosure statements under Section 27 are not sufficient alone for conviction.
- Sunil Bhatt v. State6: Rajasthan HC view that narco-analysis could be an evidentiary right.
OBITER DICTUM
The Court expressed disapproval of the practice where courts entertain investigative strategies (like narco-tests) in bail hearings. It emphasized that modern investigative needs cannot override constitutional protections.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Involuntary narco-analysis tests are unconstitutional, violating Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The High Court committed an error in accepting the investigating officer’s submission to conduct such tests during bail proceedings. A voluntary narco-analysis test is not an indefeasible right of the accused. It may be permitted by a competent court at an appropriate stage (e.g., when leading defense evidence), with full safeguards in place. Results of narco-tests cannot directly be used as evidence, but facts discovered through them may be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if corroborated.
Read and download the judgment here: