Refusal to undergo a DNA test in sexual offense cases, as permitted under Section 51 of the BNSS, constitutes non-cooperation with the investigation and justifies the cancellation of bail, as it does not violate the right against self-incrimination.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/A.2 aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1308 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.4524 of 2026 in SC.PCS.No.463 of 2025 in Cr.No.129 of 2025 of Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Crl.M.P. No.1308 of 2026 was filed by the prosecution seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the revision petitioner on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation. It was contended that, despite being served with a notice by the Investigating Officer to undergo a DNA test, the revision petitioner failed to comply and instead submitted a reply stating that such a test would violate his fundamental rights. Upon considering the submissions of both parties and the material available on record, the trial Court allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to the revision petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Mohd.Ashraf Ali, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court erroneously cancelled bail of the petitioner. As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, accused cannot give evidence against himself, but the trial Court cancelled the bail for the purpose of DNA test. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi & Others V State of Karnataka, 2010(2) ALD Crl.401(SC) and R.Rajendran V Kumar Nisha , 2026(1) ALD Crl.484 (SC), wherein it is observed that DNA test infringes the fundamental right and dignity and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. He contended that, despite being served with a notice by the Investigating Officer to undergo a DNA test, the revision petitioner failed to comply with the same and deliberately refused to cooperate with the investigation. In such circumstances, the trial Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision case.

6. Upon considering the rival submissions and the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was served with a notice by the Investigating Officer directing him to undergo a DNA test. However, the petitioner refused to comply with the said notice and submitted a reply stating that such a direction infringes his fundamental rights.

7. Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides that, in cases involving sexual offences, the medical examination of an accused may include collection of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs, sputum, sweat, hair samples, fingernail clippings, and other necessary tests, including DNA profiling, if the registered medical practitioner considers the same necessary. Thus, the Investigating Officer is empowered to request such examination, and it is for the registered medical practitioner to decide whether DNA profiling is necessary in the facts of the case.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is facing allegations under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sect