DNA test refusal costs POCSO accused bail, rules Telangana HC

The accused leaned on the Supreme Court's rulings in Selvi v State of Karnataka and R Rajendran v Kumar Nisha to argue that compulsory testing breached his fundamental rights and dignity.

Hyderabad: An accused cannot dodge a DNA test in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case by invoking his right against self-incrimination, the Telangana High Court has ruled, upholding the cancellation of bail granted to Haseeb Ullah Khan after he refused to comply with an investigator’s notice.

According to Live Law, Justice K Sujana rejected Khan’s argument that the test violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution, holding that DNA profiling falls squarely within Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the provision that succeeded Section 53A of the CrPC and allows medical examination, including DNA collection, in cases of sexual offence.

Khan had leaned on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Selvi v State of Karnataka and R Rajendran v Kumar Nisha to argue that compulsory testing breached his fundamental rights and dignity. The Court wasn’t persuaded. Selvi, it noted, dealt with involuntary techniques like narco-analysis and polygraph tests, not DNA profiling, which BNSS explicitly permits. R Rajendran, meanwhile, arose from a cheating and harassment case in which DNA evidence had no bearing on the charges; here, with allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 65 of the BNS, the Court said that DNA profiling has a direct and recognised link to the offence itself.

The case originated when the Investigating Officer issued Khan a notice to undergo the test. He refused, telling the officer it would violate his fundamental rights. The prosecution cited this as non-cooperation and sought cancellation of his bail; the Special POCSO Court agreed. Khan then moved the High Court in revision.

The State opposed the plea, arguing Khan’s refusal was a deliberate attempt to stall the investigation despite a lawful directive. The High Court agreed, finding no illegality in the trial court’s order, dismissing the revision, and directing Khan to cooperate with the investigation and undergo the DNA test whenever required.