
Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
Last Updated:
An order of the Patna High Court had allowed the police to subject all accused persons to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation.
The Supreme Court on Monday held that an accused person does not have an indefeasible right to undergo a narcoanalysis test, while at the same time clarifying that such a test may be permitted at an appropriate stage of trial upon application, provided the Court is satisfied that there is free consent and adequate safeguards in place.
The Court made the observation in an Appeal challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which had allowed the police to subject all accused persons, including the Appellant, to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, stating that it was contrary to the principles laid down in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), where the apex court had held that involuntary subjection to scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, lie detector, and brain mapping violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial," the Court observed.
However, the Bench emphasised that such a right is not absolute, and that any application made by an accused must be judicially assessed, taking into account factors such as free will, voluntariness, procedural safeguards, and the overall circumstances of the case.
Facts of the Case
The family members of the wife got an FIR lodged on August 24, 2022 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, suspecting foul play and alleging that the accused made repeated demands of dowry and used to beat the victim since the marriage on December 11, 2020.
The Appellant contended the acceptance of such a submission by the High Court was in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by this court in the Selvi case, wherein it was observed that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out that there has been a divergence of views taken by High Courts on the issue as to whether a narco-analysis test can be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Given the suspect nature of a report of narco-analysis, he said that this position must be clarified.
Court Decries Blanket Testing of All Accused
Criticising the blanket direction of the Patna High Court that allowed narco-tests to be conducted on all accused persons based on a submission made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the Supreme Court noted that such an order could not have been passed while dealing with a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
'We fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court while adjudicating an application for regular bail. It is settled law that while entertaining such an application, the Court must confine itself to considerations such as the nature of the crime, allegations, evidence, period of custody, and possibility of tampering with evidence," the Bench said.
The Court also took note of the suspect evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests and made it clear that results of such tests, even if voluntarily undergone, cannot by themselves form the sole basis for conviction.
'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person," the Court held while answering the second legal issue involved in the matter.
Right to Lead Evidence Not a Justification
The State had attempted to justify the High Court's direction by arguing that the accused had a right to lead evidence in their defence, and a voluntary narco-test was a part of that right. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court categorically held that such a view was untenable in light of the principles laid down in Selvi and the inherently unreliable nature of the technique.
'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature," the Court remarked, adding that the Rajasthan High Court's earlier view to the contrary could not be sustained.
Assistance by Amicus and Legal Representation
Given the complexity of constitutional and procedural issues involved, the Court had appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae. The Appellant was represented by AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh, while the Respondent-State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan.
The Court rejected a submission by the state government that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that a narco analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted.
'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21," the Bench said.
Conclusively, the Court set aside the impugned Order dated 9th November 2023 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 and allowed the appeal.
First Published:
June 10, 2025, 13:39 IST
News india Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Murder over peeing near shop: Cops draw flak for accused getting bail
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The city police arrested the five accused following the murder of a man and the injury of two people during a brawl over urinating near a chicken shop in the Mukundwadi area late on Thursday. However, the accused obtained bail within 24 hours of their arrest, drawing criticism of the city police. On Friday, special judge (SC & ST Act) A R Ubale granted bail after ACP Sudarshan Patil presented the accused in court seeking their police custody. Judge Ubale ruled the arrest illegal due to non-compliance with constitutional and legal safeguards, notably article 22(1) of the Constitution and section 47 of the BNS. In his order, Judge Ubale stated: "Apex Court cast duty on the trial court to declare the arrest to be illegal and to release the accused on bail, forthwith, if there is non-compliance with the constitutional mandate. As in the present case, the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the accused Nos.1 to 5 in writing, their arrest becomes illegal. Therefore, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to be released from custody on furnishing bail and bonds. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo " The court noted although the investigating officer, ACP Patil, claimed to have informed the accused of the grounds of arrest, he admitted that no written communication was made. Though there were station diary entries in this regard, the arrest memo entries lacked any mention of specific grounds for arrest. Judge Ubale relied on key Supreme Court rulings, including Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana, Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, and Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi), reaffirming the mandatory requirement to inform an arrested person in writing and in comprehensible language about the reasons for arrest. The court held that any violation renders the arrest and remand process illegal, though it does not affect the validity of the investigation or trial. The five accused — Mastan alias Nanna Husain Qureshi, Samir Khan Sartaj Khan, Babar Shaikh Afsar Shaikh, Sajid Quresh alias Sajju Ahmed Qureshi, and Nasir Khan Mohammad Munir Khan — were granted bail on a personal bond of Rs25,000 each, along with one solvent surety. The court directed them to cooperate with the investigation and attend the MIDC Cidco police station every Saturday and Sunday until the chargesheet is filed. Meanwhile, Satara area police station arrested the five accused in a pending dacoity case.


Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Assam court frames charges against IPS officer in 2019 sexual harassment case
A Special Court in Assam's Karbi Anglong recently framed charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and for sexual harassment against IPS officer Gaurav Upadhyay in a six-year-old case from the time when he was the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district. In an order issued on June 18, R. Lal., the Special Judge, POCSO of Karbi Anglong framed charges under section 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code – provisions that pertain to criminal force to a woman 'with intent to outrage her modesty' and sexual harassment – and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against Upadhyay and set July 21 as the next date of hearing. On that day, the court is scheduled to inquire whether he pleads guilty or intends to face trial. The incident, involving a minor girl, allegedly took place in 2019 and a police case was registered in January 2020. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had probed the case and subsequently submitted its chargesheet against the IPS officer in 2021. The court has recorded that there are two alleged incidents from 2019. In its order, the court noted that the case has been in the pre-trial for several years. On the June 18 hearing as well, the counsel for the accused had sought directions of the court to call for the investigating officer to produce statements of 13 witnesses not relied upon at the time of submitting the chargesheet. 'The chargesheet is for an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The legislature has mandated a time-bound completion of trial in such cases. Judicial precedents also direct the trial courts to expedite such cases, placing them on the fastest track possible. It is noted that this case has remained at the pre-trial stage for several years and further adjournment runs the risk of infringing Article 21 of the Constitution, a right available to the victim with equal vigour,' states the order. Upadhyay, is an IPS officer of the 2012 batch. He is currently the additional secretary of the state transport department, the state project director of the Assam Inland Water Transport Development Society, and the project officer of Assam Integrated River Basin Management. Bringing on record the statement of the victim, the court stated, 'The court has perused all relevant materials furnished by the prosecution side, including the statement of the victim. This court has also heard both sides. Based on the materials, there is ground for presuming, under section 288 CRPC, that the accused has committed an offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. IT is pertinent to mention here that there were two incidents of sexual assault on the victim. The first assault occurred in SP Bungalow in Diphu. The second assault took place in the hotel room where the victim was staying with her mother and brother'.


The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC
The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.