ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Veena Devi seeks quashing of the order dated 6.6.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, in Bhagwanpur P. S. Case No. 49 of 2014, whereby a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts of case are as under:—

(a) One Narendra Thakur lodged a report with Bhagwanpur Police Station on 7.3.2014 that on 6.3.2014 at about 6 p.m., his niece Rani Kumari, aged about 8 years, had gone outside the house to play but did not return.

(b) On the basis of the aforesaid information, a missing person report was entered in the station diary of the Police Station on 7.3.2014. As the victim could not be located, the informant suspected that some unknown criminal might have kidnapped her.

(c) Accordingly, on the basis of a written report, dated 8.3.2014, submitted by Narendra Thakur, Bhagwanpur P. S. Case No. 49 of 2014, was registered under Sections 364 and 372/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) against unknown and investigation was taken up.

(d) In course of investigation, the petitioner was detained by the police on 10th March 2014, and was forwarded to the Court on 12th March, 2014. On the same day, the Jurisdictional Magistrate remanded her to judicial custody. The petitioner challenged the remand order dated 12th March, 2014, in revision, before the District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai on the ground that her detention by the police beyond 24 hours was violative of Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (For short ‘Cr.P.C.’). The said revision application was ultimately heard by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, who allowed the same vide order, dated 26.5.2014, by declaring the remand of the petitioner to be illegal and setting aside the same.

(e) Consequent to the order, dated 26.5.2014, passed by the revisional Court, the petitioner was set at liberty by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, vide order dated 27.5.2014.

(f) While the petitioner was still in custody, the Investigating Officer of the case, completed the investigation in so far as it related to the petitioner and two of the co-accused, namely, Basanti Devi and Gayatri Devi and finding the case to be true, submitted charge-sheet on 10th May, 2014, against them for the offences under Sections 364, 372/34 IPC.

(g) After perusal of the charge-sheet and the materials available in the case-diary, the Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 364, 372/34 IPC against the petitioner and two others vide order dated 28.5.2014. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Investigating Officer of the case filed an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, on 6.6.2014, praying therein for issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner for the reason that a lie detection test of the petitioner is essential in order to recover the missing girl. It was further stated that as the petitioner was not found at her house and was absconding, the notice in this regard could not be served upon her.

(h) Taking into consideration the application of the Investigating Officer, the Jurisdictional Magistrate vide impugned order dated 6.6.2014, issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

3. Assailing the impugned order dated 6.6.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an accused of a case cannot be compelled to become a witness against himself. He submits that a forcible lie detection test amounts to disproportionate intrusion into personal liberty. The same would also to be contrary to the rights guaranteed to a citizen under Clause (3) of Article 20 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that compulsory administration of such scientific test violates the right against self-incrimination. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Selvi & Ors. Vs. State of Karn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document