ANALYSING THE VALIDITY OF NARCO ANALYSIS TESTS IN CUSTODY
Case Name: Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No __ of 2025 (Arising out of SPL(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 9th June, 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The current appeal was filed from an interim order passed on 9th November 2023 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 while hearing a bail application. The case involved the disappearance of the wife of the appellant, Amlesh Kumar. An FIR had been filed on 24th August 2022 under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), i.e., Sections 498A, 364, and 506, charging the appellant and his family members with cruelty, dowry harassment, and alleged foul play.
The appellant maintained that his wife had disappeared while on a trip to Ayodhya, having deboarded a bus at Baabali Chawk but failing to return. A general diary was registered on 28th August 2022. Co-accused allegedly gave confessional statements that the woman was pushed into the river Saryu. While the rest of the appellant’s family were released on bail, his request was turned down by the Sessions Court. On approaching the High Court, the SDPO Mahua submitted to the Court that narco-analysis tests were to be undertaken on the accused and other witnesses. The High Court, rather than hearing the bail application, accepted the SDPO’s submission and adjourned the matter for a later date. Aggrieved, the appellant went to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the High Court could have proceeded with the investigation officer’s offer to conduct narco-analysis tests during a bail application hearing.
- Whether the report of a voluntary narco-analysis test can be the sole basis for the conviction of an accused in a criminal trial?
- Whether an accused can invoke a right to submit to narco-analysis as an indefeasible legal right voluntarily.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India 1950: No person can be accused of any offence in which he is compelled to be a witness.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950: This article says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: When an accused gives information in police custody that leads to the discovering of a fact, only that part of the information related to the discovered fact can be used as evidence.
Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973:
- If the accused is not acquitted under section 232, the court will ask them to present a defence and evidence.
- If the accused submits a written statement, it will be added to the case record.
- If the accused asks the court to call any witness or bring any document, the court must allow it, unless it believes the request is made to cause delay, trouble, or misuse justice.
Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure 1973 gives special powers to the High Court or the Court of Session regarding bail.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The appellant contended that the High Court’s determination that the SDPO’s offer to administer narco-analysis violated constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(3) and 21. The judgment in Selvi v. State of Karnataka was referred to, in which the court held that the involuntary administration of narco-analysis and such other methods contravenes the right against self-incrimination and liberty. The appellant also argued that such tests do not belong within the realm of a bail application, which is to be decided based on current evidence, charges of the offence, and the probability of tampering with witnesses, not conjectural investigative methods.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The State had justified the High Court’s method, stating that where serious and pending crimes like disappearance or suspected murder were involved, tools of modern investigation like narco-analysis were required to unveil the truth and help trace missing persons. It was also submitted that no coercion was employed and the investigation was conducted assiduously in the public interest.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court reiterated that forced administration of narco-analysis tests violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. Quoting the historic Selvi judgment, it directed that no individual shall be compelled to undergo such tests without free and informed consent, and even then, the results of the tests themselves cannot be regarded as confessional or substantive evidence. Only information reached through such tests—e.g., finding physical evidence—can be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court said that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC in entertaining suggestions for investigations during a bail hearing. Bail hearing must remain confined to the seriousness of the offence, condition of the accused, and other judicial criteria—no future conjecture tests. By accepting the proposal of the SDPO, the High Court converted the bail petition into a mini-trial, which was not allowed.
In addition, the Court made it clear that although voluntary narco-analysis is not prohibited, it cannot be demanded as a right. Such a request would have to be tested by the court under strict protections, such as medical monitoring, legal counselling, and judicial oversight, as established in Selvi and the 2000 NHRC Guidelines.
JUDGEMENT
The Court granted the appeal and quashed the challenged order of the Patna High Court dated 9th November 2023. It ruled that the High Court was in error in accepting the investigating officer’s request to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused. The Court further held that:
A voluntary narco-analysis test ca3nnot be the sole basis of conviction. Although an accused person can ask to be subjected to such a test when evidence is to be recorded at the trial stage, the request has to be examined judicially. It cannot be afforded as an indefeasible right. The Court ordered that the bail application of the appellant, if still pending, be determined afresh according to law, without regard to the narco test.
CONCLUSION
The current judgment protects the constitutional validity against self-incrimination and unjustified infringement of personal freedom. The order sets a distinct demarcation between reasonable investigation and excessive investigation, particularly at the pre-trial stage when bail is pending. The judgment is a sharp reaffirmation that scientific investigative techniques cannot cut short fundamental rights, and courts should not let police practice whittle down judicial protection. In addition, it clarifies the limited evidentiary nature of narco-analysis tests and requires scrupulous adherence to procedural protection in their conduct.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
