Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, 2025
The Supreme Court holds that voluntary narco-analysis by an accused is permissible, but not an indefeasible right, and inadmissible without corroboration.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
11 June 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol ⦁ Justice PB Varale
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The case arose from a dowry death allegation, where the husband (appellant) and his family were accused.
-
While other family members got bail, the husband’s bail was denied by the Patna High Court.
-
The High Court accepted the police’s submission that a narco-analysis test would be conducted on all accused during investigation.
-
The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, citing the ruling in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) which declared forcible narco-analysis unconstitutional.
-
The Supreme Court appointed amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal to assist in addressing constitutional concerns.
Issues
-
Whether the High Court was correct in accepting the conduct of narco-analysis during bail proceedings..
-
Whether voluntary narco-analysis can be requested by an accused and if such test reports can form sole basis of conviction.
-
Whether the accused has an indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis during the trial.
Held
-
High Court erred by considering narco-analysis at the bail stage—a bail hearing is not the forum to suggest or order such investigative procedures.
-
No one can be forced to undergo a narco-analysis test; consent is mandatory, and even then, it must be judicially scrutinized.
-
Accused can request voluntary narco-analysis, but the court must evaluate:
-
Free and informed consent
-
Need and timing
-
Adequate procedural safeguards
-
-
Such tests alone cannot determine guilt; they must be supported by independent and corroborative evidence.
Analysis
-
The Reaffirmed the Selvi (2010) precedent, protecting individuals against self-incrimination and unlawful bodily intrusion.
-
It Clarified that bail hearings must focus on standard criteria like nature of the offence, custody period, evidence prima facie, and not delve into complex investigative measures.
-
The Court disapproved of High Courts bypassing trial safeguards by ordering narco-tests as bail conditions or investigation methods.
-
Highlighted the unreliability of narco-analysis, reinforcing that its evidentiary value is limited.
-
Distinguished between investigative usefulness and admissibility in court, ensuring accused rights remain protected during the trial.