Police inspector ignored DNA test order in POCSO case. High Court slammed him. Supreme Court says: fair.

A police inspector gets a forensic report with a clear instruction: get the DNA test done. He doesn't. The accused applies for bail. The judge notices the missing report—and turns the heat on the officer.

The High Court summoned the Superintendent of Police. It summoned the forensic lab in-charge. Both appeared and explained: the inspector had simply ignored the order. The SP had already line-attached the officer and started a major penalty inquiry. But the High Court wasn't done. In its bail order, it recorded prima facie findings of dereliction of duty against the inspector and directed action against him.

The inspector went to the Supreme Court. His argument: a bail hearing under Section 439 of the CrPC (the provision that gives High Courts and Sessions Courts special powers to grant bail) is about bail — not about disciplining police officers. The High Court, he said, had exceeded its jurisdiction.

When the DNA test never happened

In July 2021, an FIR was registered at Sleemanabad Police Station in Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The accused, Shiv Kumar Kushwah, faced serious charges: rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and violations of the Information Technology Act.

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report arrived on October 25, 2021. It was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Katni, who forwarded it to Inspector Sanjay Dubey with a clear written instruction: get the DNA examination done.

Dubey did nothing.

Months passed. The accused applied for bail before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court called for the case diary. The FSL report was missing. The judge noticed.

The High Court's heat

The High Court summoned the SP and the forensic lab in-charge. They appeared and told the court what had happened: the report had been forwarded to Dubey with instructions, and Dubey had not acted. The SP confirmed he had already line-attached Dubey (a form of administrative action where an officer is attached to the police lines, effectively removed from field duty) and was initiating a major penalty inquiry.

In its bail order dated September 21, 2022, the High Court recorded prima facie findings of dereliction of duty against Dubey. It directed that action be taken against him.

Dubey challenged this order before the Supreme Court. His counsel argued that a Section 439 proceeding — a bail application — cannot be used to record findings against a police officer who is not even a party to the proceeding. The High Court, he said, had overstepped.

What the Supreme Court saw

The Supreme Court bench — Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah — heard the appeal on May 11, 2023. They acknowledged that, strictly speaking, a Section 439 proceeding should be confined to deciding bail. The High Court could have taken a more procedurally refined approach.

But the Court also saw something else.

The High Court is not just a court of appeal or bail. Under Article 214 of the Constitution, it is a Constitutional Court. It possesses powers under Article 226 (the power to issue writs — orders that can compel action or correct errors) and Article 227 (the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals). These powers, the Supreme Court held, are not circumscribed by the procedural vehicle through which a matter comes before it.

"The High Court, being a Constitutional Court under Article 214, possessing powers under Articles 226 and 227, has the power to issue directions in the interest of justice even while deciding a bail application under Section 439 CrPC," the Court said, "particularly when it encounters grave lapses on the part of the police or investigative machinery that may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system."

The Court distinguished two precedents cited by Dubey — Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat and State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M Murugesan — on facts. Those cases, the Court said, did not involve the kind of investigative lapse that had occurred here.

Why the directions survived

The Supreme Court noted a crucial detail: the SP had already decided to initiate departmental proceedings against Dubey and had stated so before the High Court. The High Court's directions to take action were, in substance, reiterative of what the SP had already said he would do.

"Where the superior officer has already suo motu decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the delinquent officer and stated so before the court," the Court held, "the High Court's directions to take action are merely reiterative and not an independent exercise of judicial power requiring interference."

The appeal was dismissed. But the Court added a caveat: the High Court's observations shall not be treated as findings against Dubey in the departmental proceedings. He is entitled to raise all grounds in those proceedings.

What this means for investigators

The judgment is a clear message to investigating officers: ignoring a DNA test order in a POCSO case will not go unnoticed. A bail hearing is not a safe harbour. The High Court can — and will — call out investigative lapses, even if the officer is not a party to the bail application.

For practitioners, the takeaway is procedural. The Supreme Court suggested the better course for a High Court encountering investigative lapses during bail proceedings is to direct institution of separate proceedings under Article 226, formulate reasons and points for consideration, and refer the matter to the Chief Justice for placement before an appropriate bench — affording adequate opportunity to the persons proceeded against. But the absence of that procedural refinement did not make the High Court's order invalid.

THE PLAY: If you receive an FSL report with a DNA examination direction, execute it immediately — a bail judge can and will notice its absence, and the High Court's constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 are not limited by the procedural label on the file.

The DNA test was never done. The accused remains in the system. And a police inspector learned that a bail hearing is not just about the accused — it is also a window through which the court can see the entire investigation.