Summary and Analysis of Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2025 INSC 810)

Case Details:

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Citation: 2025 INSC 810

• Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prasanna B. Varale

• Appellant: Amlesh Kumar

• Respondent: State of Bihar

• Key Issue: Constitutional validity of narco-analysis tests and the accused’s right to voluntarily undergo such tests.

Background and Facts:

1. FIR and Allegations:
   An FIR was registered against Amlesh Kumar (husband) and his family under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC.
   The complainant alleged dowry harassment and foul play in the disappearance of her sister (Amlesh’s wife).
   Amlesh claimed his wife went missing during a trip to Ayodhya.

2. High Court’s Order:
   The Patna High Court accepted the Investigating Officer’s submission to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons, including Amlesh, during the investigation.
   Amlesh challenged this order, citing violations of constitutional rights under Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010).

Key Legal Issues:

1. Whether the High Court could order narco-analysis tests during a bail hearing.

2. Whether voluntary narco-analysis test results can be the sole basis for conviction.

3. Whether an accused has an indefeasible right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

1. Involuntary Narco-Analysis Tests Violate Constitutional Rights:

• The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Selvi:
  Article 20(3): Protects against self-incrimination; involuntary tests violate this right.
  Article 21: Protects personal liberty and privacy; forced tests breach these safeguards.
  Results of involuntary tests are inadmissible as evidence.

• The High Court erred in accepting the Investigating Officer’s proposal for involuntary tests during a bail hearing, as it contravened Selvi and constitutional protections.

2. Evidentiary Value of Voluntary Narco-Analysis Tests:

• Voluntary tests require strict safeguards (e.g., informed consent, judicial oversight).

• Test results alone cannot convict an accused; corroborative evidence is necessary under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

• Reliance placed on Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025) and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. (2023).

3. No Indefeasible Right to Demand Narco-Analysis Tests:

• The Rajasthan High Court’s view (Sunil Bhatt v. State)—that accused can demand such tests as a statutory right—was rejected.

• Voluntary tests may be permitted at the trial stage (under Section 233, CrPC) but only after evaluating:
  Free and informed consent.
  Compliance with safeguards (e.g., legal representation, medical supervision).

• Courts must prevent misuse and ensure tests are not coercive or deceptive.

4. Guidelines for Voluntary Tests (Reiterated from Selvi):

• Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

• Accused must be informed of legal implications and have access to a lawyer.

• Independent agencies (e.g., hospitals) must conduct tests in the presence of a lawyer.

Final Decision:

• The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order for narco-analysis tests.

• Directed the High Court to decide Amlesh’s bail application afresh, adhering to constitutional and evidentiary principles.

Conclusions :

• Reinforces the primacy of constitutional rights (Articles 20(3) and 21) over investigative techniques.

• Clarifies that voluntary narco-analysis tests are permissible only with safeguards and cannot substitute substantive evidence.

• Prevents misuse of scientific tests in criminal proceedings, ensuring fairness and due process.

Judgment delivered on: June 9, 2025