ORDER :

1. This petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is directed against the impugned order dated 18-2-2020 passed by the Special Judge, SCST (PA) Act, Bilaspur, directing DNA test of the petitioner/accused and the victim and one another at the request of the investigating officer, as Crime No.2/2019 for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCST Act’) has been registered against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner herein principally calls in question the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him while directing his DNA test and DNA test of the victim and one another, and the learned Special Judge did not apply her mind to the matter and without satisfying herself in respect of adequacy and sufficiency of material collected during investigation by the police against the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Mr. Vipin Punjabi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, would submit that the learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in directing for DNA test of the petitioner and the victim as well and the victim’s daughter holding that it is necessary for investigation of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SCST Act. The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the investigation has not been completed and there is no adequate material on record to hold that DNA is necessary for just and proper investigation of the alleged offence in question and the order passed by the learned Special Judge runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Kathi David Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 769. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3, on advance copy, would submit that the order directing DNA test has been passed on adequate ground and in order to have proper investigation in the light of the provisions contained in Section 53A of the CrPC.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission of this present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that Crime No.2/2019 for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SCST Act has been registered against the petitioner and he is facing investigation and he has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the report of the victim, Crime No.2/2019 has been registered for the aforesaid offence in which the victim has alleged that she came in contact with the petitioner in the year 2003 and thereafter, the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, continuously committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, she became pregnant and delivered a baby girl on 6-2-2011, but thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her, as such, FIR was lodged on 29-6-2019 and aforesaid offences have been registered against the petitioner. Victim was medically examined by the medical practitioner and two vaginal slides of her private parts were prepared and same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur on 28-12-2019, wherein the State FSL, Raipur by letter dated 20-5-2019, advised that if the victim had become pregnant with the accused then DNA test would be appropriate to bring home the charge and DNA test was advised to establish the charge and to find out the biological father of the victim’s daughter pursuant to which the investigating officer filed an application on 17-2-2020 before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, seeking DNA of the victim, the petitioner and one another, and on the said application, the