Telangana High Court upholds bail cancellation for POCSO accused refusing DNA test in investigation

Telangana High Court upholds bail cancellation for POCSO accused refusing DNA test in investigation

When a judge draws the line between self-incrimination and lawful investigative procedure: A ruling that clarifies DNA profiling in sexual offence cases.

In a significant ruling for sexual offence investigations, Justice K. Sujana of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dismissed Criminal Revision Case No. 524 of 2026, confirming the cancellation of bail granted to Haseeb Ullah Khan (A.2), who refused to undergo DNA testing in connection with a POCSO case. The petitioner had challenged an order dated 30 April 2026 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

The backdrop: A grant of bail, then a revocation

The petitioner was facing allegations under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNS S ), arising from Cr.No. 129 of 2025 registered at Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad. After bail was initially granted, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No. 1308 of 2026 seeking its cancellation, contending that the accused was not cooperating with the investigation. The Investigating Officer had served a notice directing the petitioner to undergo a DNA test. Instead of complying, the petitioner replied that such a direction violated his fundamental rights. The trial court allowed the prosecution's petition and cancelled bail — a move the accused challenged before the High Court.

The arguments: Fundamental rights versus investigative necessity

Petitioner's counsel, Sri Mohd. Ashraf Ali, argued that the trial court erred in cancelling bail. He invoked Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India , which protects an accused from being compelled to give evidence against himself. He relied on two Supreme Court decisions: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), which struck down involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination and brain-mapping; and R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2026), which cautioned against DNA testing divorced from demonstrable relevance to the charge.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri D. Arun Kumar, countered that the impugned order was sound. The accused had deliberately refused to cooperate despite lawful notice, and the trial court was justified in cancelling bail on those grounds.

The analysis: Distinguishing compulsory interrogation from lawful medical examination

The High Court drew a decisive line between coercive interrogation tools and statutorily sanctioned medical procedures. The Selvi precedent, the Court observed, addressed involuntary scientific techniques — narco-analysis, polygraph testing and brain-mapping — which compel an accused to reveal information. DNA profiling under Section 51 of the BNS S (which corresponds to Section 53-A of the CrPC) operates differently: it permits medical examination of an accused in sexual offence cases, including the collection of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs, sputum, sweat, hair samples and fingernail clippings, along with DNA profiling where a registered medical practitioner deems it necessary.

The Court also dispensed with the R. Rajendran precedent. That case concerned a paternity dispute and charges under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, where DNA testing had no direct nexus with the alleged offences. Here, by contrast, the allegations pertain to sexual offences under the POCSO Act and the BNS , where DNA evidence is directly relevant to establishing the identity of the perpetrator.

Key observations

> "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 BNS S ."

> "The facts of the present case are entirely different. Here, the allegations relate to sexual offences under the POCSO Act and the BNS , for which DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool specifically contemplated under Section 51 of the BNS S ."

The Court also acknowledged the constitutional boundaries of scientific procedures, quoting the observation in R. Rajendran : "Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need."

The decision and its implications

The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and undergo the DNA test as and when required, in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The ruling reinforces an important principle: bail is a privilege conditioned on cooperation with investigation. An accused in a sexual offence case who refuses a legally sanctioned DNA test cannot claim the protection of Article 20(3) as a shield for non-cooperation. The judgment also clarifies the scope of Selvi and R. Rajendran , ensuring those precedents are not misapplied to defeat legitimate investigative tools in sexual offence matters.