Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025): Narco-Analysis, Constitutional Safeguards and the Scope of Bail Proceedings
Author: Sakina Tailor
Student, University college of Law, MLSU, UDAIPUR
——————————————————————————————————–
💡 3 Quick Takeaways
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis violates the protections guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Narco-analysis reports cannot be directly admitted as substantive evidence or form the sole basis of a conviction. Information leading to the discovery of facts may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
- Bail proceedings under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are limited in scope and must not be converted into a mini-trial or used to order investigative techniques beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
Introduction
The use of scientific investigative techniques, such as narco-analysis, has raised significant questions concerning personal liberty and the right against self-incrimination. The Indian Constitution safeguards individuals against investigative procedures that override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025) is significant because it examines the legality of accepting a request for narco-analysis during bail proceedings under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka and clarifies the limited scope of bail proceedings, cautioning courts against converting them into mini-trials.
The ruling thus reinforces constitutional safeguards against coercive investigative practices and clarifies the limits of judicial intervention during bail proceedings.
Facts of the Case
On 24 August 2022, an FIR was registered at Police Station Mahua against the appellant, Amlesh Kumar, and his family members. The offences invoked included Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as identified in the original case submission.
On 28 August 2022, the appellant lodged a complaint at Police Station Jahangir Ganj, recorded as General Diary Entry No. 038. The complaint concerned his wife, who had gone missing on 21 August 2022 after getting off a bus at Baabali Chowk to relieve herself.
During the investigation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed that they had killed the missing woman by throwing her into the River Saryu. Based on the allegations in the FIR and the confessional statements of the co-accused, the Sessions Court rejected the appellant’s bail application on 1 August 2023.
The appellant subsequently approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna seeking regular bail. During the proceedings, the High Court accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, seeking further investigation and the conduct of narco-analysis tests on the appellant and other witnesses.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Amlesh Kumar approached the Supreme Court. He challenged the acceptance of the request for narco-analysis, contending that such a test could not be conducted without his consent, as doing so would violate his fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the High Court could accept the investigating officer’s request to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused or other witnesses during bail proceedings.
- Whether the report of a voluntarily administered narco-analysis test could, by itself, form the basis of a conviction, without supporting evidence.
- Whether an accused person possesses an indefeasible right to seek a voluntary narco-analysis test.
Relevant Legal Provisions
1. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
Article 20(3) protects an accused person against compelled self-incrimination. It provides that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
This constitutional protection is relevant to investigative techniques that seek to obtain information or responses from an accused through compulsion.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Any investigative procedure that infringes personal liberty must satisfy the constitutional requirements governing the protection of these rights.
3. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 439 confers special powers on the High Court and the Court of Session concerning bail. The provision governs the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters and does not permit bail proceedings to be transformed into a full-fledged trial or an unrestricted investigation.
4. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 27 provides an exception concerning the admissibility of information received from an accused in police custody when that information distinctly relates to a fact discovered in consequence of it.
In the context of narco-analysis, information or material subsequently discovered through a voluntarily administered test may be admissible under Section 27, subject to the provision’s requirements. The test report itself does not thereby become substantive evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant
The appellant contended that the High Court’s acceptance of the request to conduct narco-analysis violated Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, which addressed the constitutional limitations on the use of narco-analysis and other scientific investigative techniques.
It was argued that conducting such tests on an accused without consent violates the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination and infringes personal liberty.
The appellant further submitted that confessional statements made by co-accused persons and narco-analysis reports could not, by themselves, constitute a sufficient basis for conviction. The evidentiary value of information obtained through such techniques had to be assessed in accordance with the applicable law.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent
The respondent contended that narco-analysis could sometimes be necessary to uncover the truth in serious criminal cases, including cases involving murder and dowry harassment.
It was also submitted that the High Court had merely accepted the investigating officer’s assurance regarding the proposed conduct of narco-analysis and had not issued a mandatory direction requiring the tests to be conducted.
Judgment and Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acceptance of the request to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused was contrary to the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka and implicated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 439 CrPC are limited in scope. A court exercising jurisdiction over a bail application must not convert those proceedings into a mini-trial or use them as a means of directing investigative techniques beyond the scope of its authority.
The Court also addressed the evidentiary status of voluntarily administered narco-analysis tests. Consistent with the principles in Selvi, the results of such tests cannot be admitted directly as substantive evidence. However, information or material subsequently discovered as a consequence of information obtained through a voluntary test may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied.
The Court further clarified that neither the narco-analysis report nor the information discovered through the test can automatically be treated as the sole basis for a conviction.
The judgment also considered the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Bhatt v. State concerning an accused person’s ability to seek narco-analysis as part of the right to lead evidence in defence. The Supreme Court did not accept the proposition that an accused possesses an indefeasible right to demand such a test.
The Court’s reasoning was consistent with the principles in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, which addressed the evidentiary limitations of narco-analysis and related investigative techniques.
The constitutional position, as reflected in Selvi, is that no individual may be forcibly subjected to narco-analysis or similar techniques, whether during a criminal investigation or otherwise. Voluntary administration may be permitted subject to appropriate safeguards and informed consent. Even where consent is given, the test results themselves are not directly admissible as evidence because the person undergoing the test does not exercise conscious control over their responses during its administration.
Information or material subsequently discovered through a voluntary test may, however, be considered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
Key Judicial Precedents
1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Selvi v. State of Karnataka is a landmark judgment concerning the constitutional validity of narco-analysis, brain-mapping and polygraph tests.
The Supreme Court held that subjecting an individual to these techniques without consent violates the constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21. The judgment also clarified that the results of such tests cannot be directly admitted as substantive evidence, although information leading to the discovery of facts may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, subject to its requirements.
2. Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat
In Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, the Court considered the use of lie-detector, brain-mapping and narco-analysis tests. The case is relevant to the limitations governing the evidentiary use of voluntarily administered narco-analysis tests and the principle that their reports cannot be directly admitted as substantive evidence.
3. Vinodbhai v. State of Kerala
In Vinodbhai v. State of Kerala, the Court, relying on Manoj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, addressed the evidentiary limitations concerning information obtained through investigative techniques. The principle identified in the original submission is that a conviction cannot rest solely on such information in the absence of sufficient supporting evidence.
4. Sunil Bhatt v. State
In Sunil Bhatt v. State, the Rajasthan High Court considered whether an accused could seek a narco-analysis test at the relevant stage, with reference to the statutory right to lead evidence in defence under Section 233 CrPC.
The Supreme Court’s discussion in Amlesh Kumar is relevant to the distinction between the ability to seek a test voluntarily and the existence of an indefeasible legal right to demand that the test be conducted.
Conclusion
The decision in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar is significant for criminal investigations and for clarifying the limits of judicial authority during bail proceedings. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(3) and 21 and emphasised that investigative requirements cannot override fundamental rights.
The judgment also clarifies that a narco-analysis report cannot be directly admitted as substantive evidence or serve as the sole basis of conviction. Information leading to the discovery of facts may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to the statutory requirements.
Although the legal framework recognises the possibility of voluntarily undergoing narco-analysis subject to appropriate safeguards, an accused person does not possess an indefeasible right to demand such a test. The distinction between voluntary participation and an enforceable right to undergo the test remains important.
The National Human Rights Commission issued guidelines concerning the administration of polygraph tests on accused persons in 2000. The author further suggests that comparable safeguards should be developed for narco-analysis, brain-mapping and brain electrical activation profile tests. Such safeguards should include informed consent, access to legal assistance, and adequate information concerning the physical and psychological implications of undergoing these procedures.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that the pursuit of evidence in criminal investigations must remain within constitutional and statutory limits. It also underscores the importance of preserving the distinction between bail proceedings, investigative processes and the trial of criminal charges.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.
The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.