AMLESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 9 JUNE 2025
Criminal Appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 5392/2024).
APPELLANT: AMLESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR
BENCH: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL AND JUSTICE PB VARALE
FACT
The appellant, Amlesh Kumar, was named in an FIR registered on 24 August 2022 at Mahua Police Station, Vaishali District. The FIR which accused him and his family of offences like dowry harassment, wrongful confinement, cruelty, kidnapping, and criminal intimidation. The complaint was registered by the sister of Amlesh’s wife, where she alleged that after the marriage in December 2020, Amlesh and his family repeatedly demanded dowry and physically assaulted her sister. On 22 August 2022, Amlesh had informed the complainant that his wife had run away from matrimonial home.
Amlesh stated that his wife disappeared during a bus journey to Ayodhya on 21 August 2022, after she got off from the bus for a washroom break and did not return. He filed a missing person complaint on 28 August 2022. The wife remain missing. Co-accused persons reportedly confessed that his wife was thrown in the Saryu River.
In the criminal proceedings, Amlesh’s parents and brothers were granted bail by the Patna High Court but Amlesh regular bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 1 August 2023 due to the seriousness of allegation and confessions of co-accused. After approaching the Patna High Court, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer suggested conducting narco-analysis tests on Amlesh and other accused persons as well as on certain witnesses. The High Court accepted this submission and allowed the investigation to proceed with the tests. Aggrieved by this, Amlesh filed a appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the High Court is to permit the investigating officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused and witnesses during bail proceedings, also without their consent.
- Whether the investigating officer could compel an accused to undergo narco-analysis without their free consent, considering constitutional protections.
- Whether the report of a voluntary narco-analysis test could be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings, also it can serve as the sole basis for conviction, and an accused has an absolute right to demand such testing.
CONTENTION
Appellant’s Contentions
1)The appellant, Amlesh Kumar argued that the Patna High court permit and allowed for narco-analysis test on the accused and the witnesses during the time of investigation which is unconstitutional.
2) The Appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), which held that forced narco-tests is illegal, inadmissible, violation of mental privacy violate of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3)The appellant contended that compelling accused persons for narco-analysis which involve injection of psychoactive drug to suppress conscious control, which force the accused into giving statement without their free consent is a violation of mental privacy and constitution guarantees of dignity and also violate the principle of fair trial.
4) Also highlighted that any evidence obtained through involuntary narco-analysis should be inadmissible and illegal under Indian law. Where confession or statement against one will violate constitution protections and are unreliable for conviction.
5)The appellant further submitted that permitting narco-analysis report in the bail hearing was improper and overeach, as bail hearings must focus on the factors like the nature of evidence, the seriousness of crime, risk of tampering not invasive investigations.
6)He also stated that an accused do not have an automatic right to demand narco-analysis tests and that even if voluntary narco-analysis must be conducted with strict safeguards ensuring safeguard such as judicial oversight, medical supervision, and legal counsel presence.
RESPONDANT CONTENTION
1)The State contended that narco-analysis is a valuable and valid investigative technique especially in aid of truth-finding in serious cases like kidnapping and dowry harassment. As it ultimately helps to serve the interests of justice and victims by truth discovery.
2) state emphasized that when the narco-test conducted voluntarily and under proper safeguards, do not violate constitutional right. The consent, judicial permission, and medical check are fair, and constitutional.
3) The High Court properly exercised its direction by allowing narco-analysis, because it considering the need to thoroughly of investigate serious offences of a missing person allegation. The order was not arbitrary but a judicious step in the criminal proceedings. The police submitted that the tests were necessary for progressing the investigation.
4)The state further contended that the voluntary narco-test reports are not conclusive evidence but it can be used as corroborative material leading to independent discovery of fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which provide a legitimate investigation aid.
5)The Respondent stated that the accused does not have an indefeasible right to narco-tests and that such tests are an investigatory technique remain subject to consent and judicial control which balance defendant rights with effective law enforcement.
6) The State argued that given the victim’s disappearance and contradictory statements, a narco-analysis test was the only way to establish the truth. This was a necessary and proportional measure to prevent a serious crime from going unsolved and protect the victim’s rights, as without it, a crucial lead might be lost.
7) The Respondent also contended that public interest in solving a serious crime outweighs an individual’s right against a non-coercive investigative procedure, provided safeguards are in place. The High Court’s order was a pragmatic approach to a complex investigation, ensuring a fair trial by helping the police gather all relevant information.
RATIONALE
The court rephrase the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) is an absolute constitutional guarantee available to every accused person. No person accused of any offence could be compelled to be a witness against himself. Involuntary narco-analysis, it forces the subject to speak in a state of unconsciousness where the person has no control over their statement, and such statements are neither voluntary nor conscious, and therefore their use would directly infringe the constitutional protection.
The court’s reasoning also centered on the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed by Article 21. The Court observed that narco-analysis intrudes and infringes the most essential sphere of an individual’s personality – his thoughts and mental privacy. Bringing out information from the subconscious mind without the consent violates the core of human dignity. The Court linked this reasoning with the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right. Subjecting an accused to narco-analysis without consent amounts to a disproportionate and unconstitutional invasion of mental privacy.
The Court held that statements made during involuntary narco-analysis could not be treated as admissible and legal evidence. Such statements fail the test of voluntariness which is the most pivotal requirement under Sections 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The principle is that a confession or statement made under compulsion or inducement cannot be admitted in evidence. Even if the “information” is discovered as a result of the narco-analysis, the Court cautioned that such discoveries is illegal in itself and are inadmissible from the initial phase. The fruits of a poisonous tree doctrine was invoked to and evidence obtained by unconstitutional means cannot be legitimized merely because it leads to some discovery.
The Court drew from the Supreme Court’s decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), which had already held that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph and brain mapping tests violated Article 20(3) and Article 21. In Selvi, the Supreme Court had highlighted that such methods are inherently unreliable and carry the risk of eliciting false and incomplete responses. Applying Selvi, the Court reaffirmed that the investigative need of the State cannot override the constitutional rights of an individual. The constitutional safeguards are not negotiable even in the face of serious crimes.
The State stated that narco-analysis was necessary to get the truth and assist investigation. The Court, however, reasoned that the criminal justice system cannot sacrifice constitutional guarantees for efficiency. The Court made it clear that, though effective investigation is important, it should always be carried out within the boundaries of law and respect for human dignity and rights.
Lastly, the Court highlighted that allowing involuntary narco-analysis would set a dangerous precedent, which will normalize coercive methods of investigation. This would infringe the rule of law and transform the criminal justice system into one based on force rather than fairness which would harm the principle of fair trial. Upholding constitutional morality required the Court to prohibit such practices, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations against the accused.
DEFECT OF LAW
The Patna High Court’s order that permits narco-analysis during bail proceedings reflects a misinterpretation of the scope of bail hearings. Bail hearings are to be limited to determining whether an accused should remain in custody, considering factors such as the risk of tampering with evidence. They had no authority to give investigative steps during bail proceedings. By allowing such a test procedure at the bail stage, the High Court went beyond its jurisdiction and blurred the line between pre-trial liberty and investigation.
The order also suffered from procedural regarding the consent of individuals. The High Court assumed that the absence of objection by the accused amounted to implied consent. The Supreme Court rightly rejected this and also clarified that consent must be explicit, informed, and recorded with judicial oversight. The failure to adopt NHRC guidelines and ensure magistrate supervision weakened the procedural safeguards
The High Court did not overlook crucial constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21. The binding precedent in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) had already made it clear that involuntary narco-analysis is unconstitutional. Ignoring this precedent and breaching the protection against self-incrimination and compromising the accused’s right to dignity and liberty.
Lastly, the High Court’s order demonstrates the danger of judicial overreach. By permitting such techniques for investigation without strict legal principles, the Court opened the door for normalizing coercive practices in investigations. This shifts the judiciary from being a guardian of rights to a facilitator of questionable investigative methods, by setting a wrong precedent.
INFERENCE
The judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reflects the judiciary’s firm stance in upholding the constitutional rights, especially the protection against self-incrimination under article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty and privacy under article 20. By setting aside the Patna High Court’s order permitting involuntary narco-analysis tests during bail proceedings, the apex court has reinforced that no accused can be compelled to undergo such intrusive scientific tests without free, informed consent. The Court has reinforced that the constitutional fundamental right cannot be compromised in the name of investigation . From this, one can state that the Supreme Court is consciously aligning criminal procedure with the framework of human rights jurisprudence, ensuring that investigative methods do not infringe the fundamental principles of justice.
The case also indicates the Court’s balancing the needs of criminal justice with individual autonomy. While the State may argue that scientific techniques like narco-analysis assist in uncovering truth, the judiciary has clarified that such shortcuts cannot override due process of law. The Court recognizes a narrow, conditional scope for voluntary narco-analysis tests, subject to judicial supervision, informed consent, and compliance with procedural safeguards
Another important takeaway is that this judgment strengthens the evidentiary standards in India. By declaring involuntary narco-analysis inadmissible, the Court has indirectly reminded investigative agencies to improve professional skills and evidence-gathering methods rather than relying on coercive techniques.
Thus, the inference is that Amlesh Kumar is not only a safeguard for individual rights but also a message for systemic reform. It signifies that the legitimacy of criminal law lies not merely in punishing the guilty but in ensuring that justice is secured without violating constitutional values. And reinforces the judiciary’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights
FOOTNOTES
1.Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
2.The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20 cl. (3).
3.The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
4.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1.
5.Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ss. 24-27.
6.The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused, 2010.
NAME: SNEHA
COLLEGE NAME: ASIAN LAW COLLEGE, NOIDA