Telangana High Court Upholds Bail Cancellation After POCSO Accused Refuses DNA Test, Says It Amounts To Non-Cooperation
The Telangana High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case after he refused to undergo a DNA test, holding that DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool in sexual offence cases under Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court held that an accused cannot refuse such examination by invoking the protection...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case after he refused to undergo a DNA test, holding that DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool in sexual offence cases under Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court held that an accused cannot refuse such examination by invoking the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Justice K. Sujana observed:
"The request made by the Investigating Officer for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test is in accordance with law. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka is misplaced, as the said decision deals with involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination and brain-mapping, and not with DNA profiling under Section 51 of the BNSS."
The Court further held:
"Since the petitioner refused to undergo the DNA test and failed to cooperate with the investigation, the trial Court is justified in cancelling the bail granted to him."
The petitioner challenged an order of the Special POCSO Court cancelling the bail earlier granted to him. The prosecution had sought cancellation of bail on the ground that, despite being served with a notice by the Investigating Officer directing him to undergo a DNA test, the petitioner refused to comply and instead replied that such a test would violate his fundamental rights. The trial court accepted the prosecution's contention and cancelled his bail.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that compelling him to undergo a DNA test infringed the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Selvi v. State of Karnataka and R. Rajendran v. Kumar Nisha, he contended that compulsory DNA testing violated his fundamental rights and personal dignity.
The State opposed the revision, submitting that the petitioner had deliberately failed to cooperate with the investigation despite a lawful notice issued by the Investigating Officer. It argued that in the circumstances, the trial court was justified in treating the refusal to undergo DNA testing as non-cooperation warranting cancellation of bail.
The High Court examined Section 51 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 53A of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, and observed that in investigations relating to sexual offences, medical examination of an accused may include collection of blood, semen, swabs, hair samples and other materials, including DNA profiling, if considered necessary by the registered medical practitioner. It held that the Investigating Officer is empowered to seek such examination in accordance with law.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on Selvi, the Court held that the judgment dealt with involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph tests and brain-mapping, and therefore had no application to DNA profiling expressly contemplated under Section 51 of the BNSS.
The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. Rajendran v. Kumar Nisha. It noted that the case concerned offences of cheating and harassment, where DNA testing had no direct nexus with the allegations. In contrast, the present case involved allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), where DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool having a direct connection with the alleged offence.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to undergo the DNA test, the Court found no illegality in the trial court's decision cancelling his bail. It dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and undergo the DNA test whenever required in accordance with law.
Case Title: Haseeb Ullah Khan v. State of Telangana
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 524 of 2026
Appearance: Sri Mohd. Ashraf Ali for the petitioner; Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.