JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present petition the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

“(I) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take immediate positive decision on representation dated 12.09.2022 contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition by which petitioners are seeking utilization of modern scientific technique of “brain mapping test” like “NARCO” or “lie detector test” upon the petitioners as well as complainant to lead the investigation in right direction and contract out the truth of case pertaining to F.I.R. no.86/2022 dated 04.03.2022, U/S 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station-Mohd. Pur Khala, District Barabanki.

(II) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no.-4 to obtain viscera analysis report from Forensic Scientfic Laboratory Lucknow pertaining case/ F.I.R. no.86/2022 dated 04.03.2022, U/S 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station-Mohd. Pur Khala, District Barabanki.

(III) issue a writ order or direction in the nature and manner which deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(IV) allow the writ petition with costs.”

3. The petitioners are the accused in F.I.R. No.86 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Mohd. Pur Khala, District Barabanki. They have filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take immediate positive decision on representation dated 12.09.2022 annexed as Annexure No.1 to the petition by which the petitioners have sought utilization of modern scientific technique of ‘brain mapping test’ like ‘NARCO’ or ‘lie detector test’ upon petitioners as well as complainant to lead the investigation in right direction and to extract the truth of the case. Another relief has been sought in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no.4 to obtain viscera analysis report from Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Lucknow pertaining to the aforesaid case as viscera has been preserved.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 21.08.2015 rendered in the case of Madhuri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No.7590 (MB) of 2015. He has also relied upon another judgment dated 15.11.2019 rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No.31348 (MB) of 2019 in support of his case.

5. On the other hand learned A.G.A. Mr. Badrul Hasan has placed before the Court a judgment of Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Louis Vs. State of Kerala and others; Crl. MC No.4007 of 2021 wherein a similar request at the behest of the accused was denied on the ground that such narco analysis test etc. are not admissible as evidence and also that the accused does not have any such enforceable right.

6. We specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether such tests as are referred in the relief clause i.e. narco or lie detector test or brain mapping test are admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act or not, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that they are not admissible in evidence, however, they would help in giving direction to the investigation and to reveal the truth.

7. We have gone through the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhuri Devi (supra). That was a writ petition filed by the informant seeking a writ of mandamus directing the investigating agency to take action against the accused, respondents 4 to 9 in the course of investigation of the case. In effect, the petition sought issuance of a writ directing the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation. In the said judgment the Coordinate Bench referred to a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. W.N. Chadha; 1993 Cr.L.J. 859. I