Written by Astha Priya¹ and Priyanshu Rani²

Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar- Legality of Narco Analysis Test

Case Name: Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Bench: Sanjay Karol J., Prasanna B. Varale J.

Date of Judgment: 9^th June 2025

Introduction

Recently, in the case of Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled upon the admissibility and evidentiary value of the narco Analysis test undergone by the accused persons voluntarily. The Court delved into various aspects pertaining to the voluntary narco Analysis Test. In narco Analysis Test, the suspect is injected with a psychoactive substance under the controlled conditions to suppress the reasoning power of the suspect.[1]

The nature of the Test is such that it compromises with the privacy of the subject and voluntariness of the statement given by him during the Test. This is the reason why the admissibility of the results of such Tests has always been debated before the Court. It has always been argued that such Tests violate the fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which guarantees right of an accused person against self-incrimination and Article 21 which guarantees Right to life and personal liberty of every individual and includes his Right to privacy.

In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka[2], the Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of narco Analysis test and other such tests (such as Polygraph test and Electrical Activation Profile) is a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and issued guidelines which must be followed while conducting such tests.

The Court also held that such tests should only be administered with the consent of the accused and the results of such tests are not directly admissible. However, such results can be made admissible under Section 27[3] of Indian Evidence Act if any information or material is subsequently discovered with the help of such results. The Supreme Court in Amlesh Kumar also analyzed the decision of the Court in Selvi and reiterated that such test results cannot be admitted directly as evidence and must be supported by some other piece of evidence.

Facts

This case arose from an appeal against an order of the Patna High court, where the Court accepted the submission of the SDPO, Mahua to conduct Narco analysis test of all the accused persons and other witnesses during the investigation. The FIR involved sections 341,342,323,363, 364, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860[4] which was against the Husband and his family. The mother, father and brother of the appellant were granted bail by the High Court.

However, bail application of the applicant got rejected by the Sessions Judge, Vaishali, on the ground of allegations made in FIR as well as the confessional statements of the co-accused, in which it was stated that they had thrown the missing person in the river Saryu on the intervening night.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Sessions Court, appellant approached Patna High Court praying for the grant of a regular bail. The High Court accepted the submission of the SDPO to conduct a narco analysis test of all the accused persons and posted the case for hearing. Hence, the Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the High court could have accepted such a submission by the SDPO?
2. Whether a report of a voluntary narco analysis test can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other evidence on record?
3. Whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco analysis test, as a matter of indefeasible right?

Legal provisions involved

Constitution of India

1. Article 20(3) – It is a fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India that the accused must not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Narco analysis test undermines this fundamental right of an accused person as the statements made by such persons during narco analysis tests are not voluntary, but under the influence of psychoactive drugs, where he loses his capability to understand the consequences of his statements.
2. Article 21- It guarantees to every individual right to life and personal liberty, which cannot be curtailed unless by the procedure established by the law, which must also be just, fair, and reasonable.[5] It has been held by the Court in Selvi that forcibly subjecting an individual to Narco Analysis Test or other such tests amounts to unwarranted intrusion in the personal liberty of that person.[6] It is also an invasion on the privacy of an individual. 

Indian Evidence Act,  1872

Section 27[7] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for discovery statement. Section 27 reads as follows:

“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of the police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Although the confession given to the police officer or in the custody of the police officer is not admissible and cannot be proved, however, Section 27 acts as a proviso, that if a fact is discovered as a consequence of such statements, then it can be proved.  If as a consequence of the statements made during Narco Test and other similar tests, a fact is discovered, then such statements can be proved under Section 27. However, it must be noted here that such statements are not directly admissible as evidence.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 233 of Criminal Procedure Code[8] provides that if the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defense and adduce any evidence he may have in support. In Amlesh Kumar case, the Court held that at this stage, which has been referred as ‘appropriate stage’, the accused can seek Narco Analysis Test.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that it is not inclined to accept the submission of the Respondent State that since modern investigative techniques are need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission to conduct narco-analysis test of all accused. While the need of the modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Article 20(3) and 21.

Therefore, the Court ruled that the High Court has erred in accepting the submission to carry out a narco- analysis test of all the accused persons by the investigating officer. Also, a report of narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards as well in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person, until supported by any other piece of evidence.

The Court further held that undergoing a narco analysis test is not a part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature. So, the accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage. The court also pointed out that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in trial under Section 233, CrPC.

However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test. However, upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., while authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test.

Subsequently, the Appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna was set aside. The bail application of the appellant was left to be decided in accordance with the law.

Reasoning of the Judgment

The Court answered the first issue in negative. The reasons behind holding that the High Court has erred in accepting the submission of the investigating officer to conduct Narco-test of all the accused persons were two fold.

Firstly, the Court concluded that such tests have been held violative of Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Selvi by the three Judge Bench. Accepting such submission by the High Court is in direct contravention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Selvi.

Secondly, the Court relied on the case of Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat[9] in which it was held that while considering bail application under Section 439 CrPC[10], the Court should not undertake meticulous examination of the allegations or accept submissions claiming conduct of involuntary investigative techniques.

To answer the second issue, the Court relied upon the case of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala[11], where it was held that voluntary narco analysis test cannot be the sole basis of conviction, unless supported by any other piece of evidence. In Vinobhai, Court itself relied on the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP[12] .

While answering the third issue, it was held that there is no indefeasible right of the accused to undergo Narco Analysis test and reiterates Selvi. Due to the suspect nature of such tests, the Court answered the third question in negative.

Cases referred

Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

It is a landmark judgment decided by three Judge Bench where it was held that involuntary administration of Narco Test or other similar tests violates Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. These rights are non-derogable and sacrosanct in nature and no exceptions can be carved out to such rights.

Moreover, it was held that results of such tests cannot be treated as ‘material evidence’ in the eyes of law. The Court even ruled upon the evidentiary value of the results of the voluntary Narco-Analysis tests and other similar tests. The Court held that if any fact is discovered subsequent to information provided in such tests, then it can be admitted under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

In this case, the Court also issued certain guidelines to be followed while conducting ‘Narco Analysis Technique’ and ‘Brain Electrical Activation Profile Test’. The Court held that Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused, 2000 published by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should also be followed while conducting ‘Narco Analysis Technique’ and ‘Brain Electrical Activation Profile Test’.  Some of the relevant guidelines (as enumerated in the 2000 Guidelines) are as follows:

1. Lie Detector tests should not be conducted except by the consent of the person, which is to be recorded by the Judicial Magistrates.
2. During the hearing, the person alleged to have consented must be duly represented by the lawyer.
3. Such statement will be considered as the ‘confessional’ statement before the Police officer.
4. The Magistrate shall consider all the factors relating to the detention including length of detention and the nature of interrogation.
5. Actual recording of the Test to be done by an independent agency.

Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court while deliberating on the first issue relied on Sangitaben case. In this case, it was held by the Court that while considering the bail application under Section 439, factors such as gravity of crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offences, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses, obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are to be considered. While adjudicating upon the bail application, the Court must not get into roving inquiry and allow use of such involuntary investigative techniques.

Each criminal case presents its own factual situation and therefore certain ground which is relevant for the given case has to be taken into account by the Court. However, it was also held that the court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police, or rather order specific tests to be conducted on the accused.

Vinobhai v. State of Kerala

In this case, the Court while placing reliance on the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. state of MP, held that in the absence of supporting evidence, a conviction cannot be based solely on such information and observed that a report of a voluntary narco analysis test with adequate safeguards as well in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person. Hence, the law relating to the evidentiary value of recovery made under section 27 is no longer res integra and has been settled in the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP.

Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP

In this case, the Court dealt with the issue: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? The Court ruled that although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that in the case of Amlesh Kumar case, the Court reiterated the judgment of Selvi. The Court ruled that the narco-analysis test is not an indefeasible right of the accused. Also, the result of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless supported by any other piece of evidence. However, the accused can go through these tests voluntarily. The case also highlights the evidentiary value of the information recorded through such tests. The results of such test are not treated as primary evidence, but can be proved under Section 27 if any recovery is made on basis of such result.

To read more content on similar topic click here.

Reviewed and published by Jeet Sinha.

---

[1] BR Sharma, Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, Sixth Edition, 2020- Paragraph 32.1.1.

[2] (2010) 7 SCC 263.

[3] Corresponding Proviso to section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

[4] Corresponding Section 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 137(2), 140(1), 85, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

[5] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.

[6] Selvi and Ors. v. Stateof Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.

[7] Corresponding to Proviso to Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, 2023.

[8] Corresponding to 256 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

[9] (2019) 14 SCC 522.

[10] Corresponding Section 483 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

[11] 2025 SCC Online SC 178.

[12] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984.

1. Astha Priya, 2nd Year, LLM, South Asian University, New Delhi. ↩︎
2. Priyanshu Rani, 2nd Year, LLM, South Asian University, New Delhi. ↩︎