Accused Has A Right To Undergo Voluntary Narco-Analysis Test At An Appropriate Stage

In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 810, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal, sharply criticised the Bihar High Court for permitting involuntary narco-analysis tests and conducting a roving inquiry at the bail stage. The case arose when the Appellant, arrested along with co-accused for allegedly kidnapping, subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing the disappearance (feared dead based on confessional statements of co-accused), sought regular bail. However, the High Court in its impugned order accepted the submission of the Police officer to subject all the accused and witnesses to narco-analysis tests, if required.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court firmly held that neither involuntary narco-analysis nor such unfettered inquiries are permissible under law. Taking this opportunity, the Court addressed two critical questions: whether a voluntary narco-analysis report can be the sole basis for conviction, and whether an accused has the right to seek and undergo such a test. Relying on its earlier precedents, the Court ruled that a voluntary narco-analysis report or information derived from it cannot alone sustain a conviction. Further resolving divergent views across High Courts, the Supreme Court clarified that an accused may indeed request to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test, but this right is not absolute. Any such application must be examined by the concerned Court in light of the overall circumstances, ensuring free consent and adequate safeguards before authorizing the procedure.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

When To File a Second FIR – Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 INSC 248) provides much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which a second FIR can be maintained. By holding that a second FIR is justified in cases involving counter-complaints, distinct scopes, broader conspiracies, or newly emerged facts, the Read more »

Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667

The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the delayed possession of an apartment. The appellant sought a refund with interest due to the respondent's failure to provide necessary completion and firefighting clearance certificates. When the Respondent had pleaded the application to be barred by limitation on the ground that the Read more »

Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years' advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.