Telangana HC Upholds Bail Cancellation for Refusing DNA Test in POCSO Case

The Telangana High Court dismissed a revision challenging bail cancellation, holding that a DNA test direction in a POCSO case is lawful under Section 51 of the BNSS and does not infringe Article 20(3).

The High Court of Telangana, sitting at Hyderabad, has dismissed a criminal revision filed by an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) matter who had his bail cancelled after refusing to submit to a DNA test. Justice K. Sujana, sitting singly, upheld the order of the Special Judge for POCSO Cases-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 30 April 2026, finding it free from any illegality or infirmity. The judgment draws a clear line between the Supreme Court's ruling in Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka — which addressed involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis and brain-mapping — and DNA profiling in sexual offence cases, which is expressly contemplated by Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Dispute Before the High Court

Haseeb Ullah Khan, the revision petitioner and accused no. 2, faced charges under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), offences relating to sexual assault. The underlying case was registered as Crime No.129 of 2025 at Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, and was being tried as SC.PCS.No.463 of 2025.

After being granted bail, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Investigating Officer directing him to appear and undergo a DNA test. He declined to comply and submitted a written reply contending that the direction violated his fundamental rights. The prosecution then filed Crl.M.P. No.1308 of 2026 before the trial court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of non-cooperation with the investigation. The Special Judge allowed the application and cancelled the petitioner's bail, prompting him to approach the High Court by way of the present criminal revision.

The Competing Constitutional and Statutory Arguments

Before Justice Sujana, counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had wrongly cancelled bail. The central submission was grounded in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects an accused from being compelled to give evidence against himself. Counsel contended that compelling a DNA test fell within this protection and relied on two decisions: the Supreme Court's judgment in Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka, reported as 2010(2) ALD Crl.401(SC), and a more recent Supreme Court ruling in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others, reported as 2026(1) ALD Crl.484(SC). Both decisions, counsel submitted, recognised that compelled scientific procedures infringe fundamental rights and dignity.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Telangana, countered that the impugned order suffered from no illegality. He submitted that the petitioner had deliberately refused to cooperate with the investigation despite being lawfully served with notice, and that in such circumstances the trial court was entirely justified in cancelling bail.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Sujana identified two distinct questions: first, whether the Investigating Officer was empowered to call for a DNA test in a sexual offence case; and second, whether the precedents cited by the petitioner had any application on these facts.

On the first question, the court turned to Section 51 of the BNSS, which corresponds to the erstwhile Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 51 provides that, in cases involving sexual offences, the medical examination of an accused may include the collection of blood, semen, swabs, hair samples, fingernail clippings, and other necessary tests including DNA profiling, if the registered medical practitioner considers such examination necessary. The court held that the Investigating Officer was therefore empowered to make the request, and the decision on whether DNA profiling was necessary rested with the registered medical practitioner on the facts of the case. Given that the charges squarely related to sexual assault under the POCSO Act and the BNS, the direction for a DNA test was found to be in accordance with law.

On the precedents, the court distinguished both decisions the petitioner relied upon. Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka, the court held, concerned involuntary scientific techniques — narco-analysis, polygraph examination, and brain-mapping — not DNA profiling. Its reasoning had no application to the present situation, where the examination sought was specifically authorised by a statutory provision dealing with sexual offences.

The court then considered the passage from R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others at length. Paragraph 59 of that judgment, quoted in full by Justice Sujana, held that a DNA test direction had been based on a “fundamental misapprehension of both statutory framework and constitutional safeguards.” That case, however, arose from a dispute over paternity and offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code — cheating offences — with no direct nexus between DNA profiling and the offences alleged. The court distinguished it clearly: the facts of the present case were entirely different, involving 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 BNSS. The R. Rajendran judgment, Justice Sujana held, had no application.

Having found the legal basis for the DNA test direction sound, the court addressed the bail cancellation itself. The petitioner's refusal to cooperate with the investigation, after having been duly served with notice, justified the trial court in withdrawing the concession of bail. The High Court found no infirmity in that exercise of discretion.

Directions Issued

Justice Sujana dismissed the criminal revision case. The petitioner was not merely left to face cancelled bail: the court issued an affirmative direction requiring him to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and to undergo the DNA test as and when required for the purpose of the investigation, in accordance with law. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the matter were also closed.

Outcome

Criminal Revision Case No.524 of 2026 was dismissed by Justice K. Sujana on 8 July 2026. The bail cancellation order of the Special Judge for POCSO Cases-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 30 April 2026, stands. Haseeb Ullah Khan is directed to cooperate with the investigation and submit to a DNA test as required.