The Supreme Court’s verdict in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar addresses a significant constitutional question concerning the permissibility of narco-analysis tests on accused persons. The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263. It establishes the contours for voluntary narco-analysis tests within the framework of criminal jurisprudence in India.
At its core, this case scrutinises whether a High Court, while hearing a bail application, can permit or endorse the conduct of narco-analysis tests on accused persons during the pendency of the investigation.
Background and Procedural History
On 24 August 2022, an FIR was registered at P.S. Mahua under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, and 34, against Amlesh Kumar (the Appellant) and his family members. The complaint was filed by the sister of the missing woman (Appellant’s wife), alleging that the woman was subjected to dowry-related cruelty and had subsequently gone missing. The complainant suspected foul play by the husband and his family.
While the Appellant claimed that his wife had gone missing after stepping out during a bus journey to Ayodhya, the co-accused made confessional statements alleging that the woman had been thrown into the Saryu River.
The Appellant’s plea for bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the confessions of the co-accused. He then approached the Patna High Court, where, during the hearing of his bail application, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) submitted that a narco-analysis test would be conducted on all accused and witnesses. The High Court accepted this submission and posted the case for a later hearing, prompting the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Apex Court framed three key legal questions:
- Whether the High Court, in a bail application, could accept a submission regarding the conduct of narco-analysis tests on the accused.
- Whether a voluntary narco-analysis test report can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other supporting evidence.
- Whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis testing voluntarily.
Legal Analysis and Observations
On Involuntary Narco-Analysis and High Court’s Error
The Court categorically held that the High Court erred in accepting the investigating officer’s proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused. Relying on Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that:
- Narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping, when conducted involuntarily, violate Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and 21 (right to personal liberty) of the Constitution.
- Such tests involve invasive interference with the mental privacy of a person and breach substantive due process.
- The results of involuntary tests cannot be considered admissible evidence.
The Court further emphasised that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC (bail applications), must not engage in a mini-trial or endorse investigative strategies that violate constitutional safeguards.
The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522, wherein the High Court had similarly ordered lie detector and narco tests during a bail hearing, and the same was held to be beyond the judicial scope at that stage.
On the Evidentiary Value of Voluntary Narco-Analysis
The Court clarified that even in voluntary cases, the results of narco-analysis tests cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Citing Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine SC 178) and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 984), the Bench emphasised that:
- The evidentiary value of disclosures under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (statements leading to discovery) is limited.
- A narco-analysis report or statements extracted therefrom must be corroborated by independent evidence.
- Without such corroboration, a conviction cannot be sustained solely based on results from a narco-analysis test.
Thus, the second issue was answered in the negative.
On the Right to Voluntarily Seek Narco-Analysis
The third question addressed the ambiguity across various High Courts regarding whether an accused can demand a narco-analysis test as a matter of right.
While the Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Bhatt v. State (2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1443) had held that an accused could assert such a right under Section 233 CrPC (right to present evidence), other High Courts such as Bombay, Delhi, Allahabad, Kerala, and Punjab & Haryana had taken a restrictive view, cautioning against accepting narco-analysis results at face value.
The Supreme Court sided with the restrictive approach, holding that:
- There is no absolute or indefeasible right to demand narco-analysis.
- The trial court must evaluate the voluntariness, the surrounding circumstances, and the necessary safeguards before allowing such a test.
- The NHRC Guidelines for polygraph tests (2000) must be strictly followed and equally applied to narco-analysis and BEAP tests.
These safeguards include:
- Informed consent before a Judicial Magistrate.
- Legal counsel and a full explanation of the implications.
- Conducting the test through an independent body, preferably in a medical setting.
- Proper documentation of all medical and procedural aspects.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) are non-derogable and cannot be diluted even in the interest of investigation.
- Narco-analysis, even when volunteered, has limited legal utility and must be supported by corroborative evidence.
- Courts, especially at the stage of bail, must refrain from endorsing intrusive investigatory tools like narco-analysis without evaluating constitutional implications.
- The Selvi judgment remains the bedrock of jurisprudence on involuntary scientific techniques in criminal investigations.
- The judicial discretion to allow voluntary narco-tests must be exercised cautiously, balancing investigative interests with fundamental rights.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 9 November 2023 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023, and directed that the Appellant’s pending bail application be reconsidered by law, without being influenced by the proposal for narco-analysis.
Conclusion
The judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reiterates the Court’s unwavering commitment to protecting individual liberties during criminal proceedings. It strikes a balance between modern investigative techniques and the foundational rights under the Constitution, particularly at a time when technological tools are increasingly used in policing.
By reinforcing the procedural and ethical safeguards against coercive scientific testing, the Court has added another layer of protection to the dignity and autonomy of the accused. Importantly, it sends a strong message to investigating agencies and lower courts that expediency cannot trump constitutional propriety.