Dismissed¶33

Aman Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2026CRMP/895/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DNA test direction in rape trial (S.376(2)(n) IPC); paternity establishment of child born 24.11.2025; privacy/personal-liberty objection rejected; Trial Court discretion upheld; R. Rajendran 2025 INSC 1304 and Nathu (CRL.A. No. 242/2023, Delhi HC) distinguished as inapplicable; CRMP No. 895 of 2026, Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur, dismissed 10.04.2026; impugned order 03.01.2026 in Session Case No. 290/2024, Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Trial Court's order dated 03.01.2026 allowing the DNA test stands. ¶33

Aman Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Trial Court's order dated 03.01.2026 allowing the DNA test stands.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.01.2026 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur allowing DNA testing of the petitioner is legal and sustainable, or whether it was passed mechanically in violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty and is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

There being no admission on record of any relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2/victim, the result of the DNA test would have a direct bearing on the case of the prosecution.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application for DNA testing, as the same would assist in arriving at a just and proper adjudication of the matter.

¶30

Key takeaways

The judgments relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, R. Rajendran vs. Kamar Nisha & Ors. (2025 INSC 1304) and Nathu vs. State (CRL.A. No. 242/2023), are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case.ratio¶31
This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure A-1).ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), CRMP No. 895 of 2026, decided 10.04.2026 by Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.: dismissed a petition challenging the order dated 03.01.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (Session Case No. 290/2024) allowing respondent No.2 (victim/complainant in a case against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC) to conduct DNA testing of her son (born 24.11.2025) to establish the petitioner's paternity. Holding that, as per the police report the victim was about six months pregnant and delivered on 24.11.2025, and there is no admission on record of any relationship by the petitioner, the DNA result would have a direct bearing on the prosecution case and assist just adjudication, the Court upheld the Trial Court's discretionary allowance of the test, found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, and held R. Rajendran vs. Kamar Nisha & Ors. (2025 INSC 1304) and Nathu vs. State (CRL.A. No. 242/2023, Delhi High Court) distinguishable on facts and inapplicable.

2026:CGHC:16686

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 895 of 2026

¶6

Aman Sinha S/o Shri Ramnarayan Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Dubey Colony, Near Arihant Hospital, Ps. Mowa, Pandri, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The PS -Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 – XYZ

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate

¶13

For the State/Respondent : Mr Afroz Khan, PL.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

10.04.2026

¶17

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (CG), in Session Case No. 290/2024, whereby application filed by respondent No.2 for conducting the DNA testing of present applicant has been allowed.

¶18

¶19

Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that a written complaint dated 05.09.2024 was lodged by respondent No.2 against the present applicant of commission of sexual intercourse on regular basis under the pretext of marriage and on conceiving the pregnancy, he firstly assured her of all support, however, subsequent backed out. Applicant's mother also backed out from the promise of her son with the complainant while she was pregnant by five months.

¶20

It is also alleged that complainant tried to get them falsely implicated in a criminal case in a matter worth Rs. 5 Lakh by filing an application before the concerned police station, whereupon on a complaint made by her, they became ready to get her married with the present applicant. Respondent No.2 went on to state that after a month, mother of applicant again refused to get her marry with the present applicant, whereupon on her raising a complaint at the police station they agreed, however, soon thereafter the applicant left the house and became untraceable. Respondent No.2 then pleaded for appropriate action against the applicant. Filing of complaint led to an investigation followed by an FIR and, thereafter, filing of chargesheet for offence against the applicant under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Filing of charge-sheet paved the way for holding of a trial for the offence alleged before the concerned Court below; copies of the relevant pages of the

¶21

¶22

charge-sheet are enclosed herein as Annexure A/2.

¶23

During course of trial, respondent No.2/victim filed an application dated 29.08.2024 seeking DNA test of her son in the process of establishing the present applicant is his father, copy of the application dated 29.08.2024 is enclosed as Annexure A/3. The present applicant on being notified of the application filed reply and vehemently objected the prayer. However, the learned Court below vide order dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) allowed the said application of the victim observing that result of the DNA test may be decisive of the allegations made by respondent No.2/victim.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order directing the DNA test is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law; said direction has been passed in clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without recording any finding as to the insufficiency of evidence on record or the necessity of conducting the DNA test for a just adjudication of the case. Learned Counsel further contended that permission regarding the blood test or DNA test should not be taken in routine course, the law with regard to directing the DNA testing is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajendran vs. Kamar Nisha & Ors. , 2025 INSC 1304, wherein it has been held that such

¶25

¶26

directions ought to be issued sparingly and only when it is eminently necessary for a just decision of the case. In the facts of the present case, the direction for DNA testing is wholly unwarranted, as the allegations pertain to an offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and even as per the prosecution case, respondent No. 2 was a consenting party. In such circumstances, the proposed DNA test would not materially aid in determining the culpability of the petitioner and thus lacks any foundational basis. The learned Trial Court has erroneously accorded undue primacy to scientific evidence without appreciating the nature of the allegations and the evidence already available on record. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he also places reliance upon the decision of High Court of Delhi in Nathu versus State., CRL.A 242/2023.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the instant petitioner including the impugned order.

¶28

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, including the impugned order, this Court finds that as per the police report, respondent No. 2/victim was approximately six months pregnant and subsequently delivered a child on 24.11.2025 at Government Hospital, Raipur. It is further observed that there is no admission on record on the part of the

¶29

¶30

petitioner regarding any relationship with respondent No. 2/victim. In such circumstances, result of the DNA test would have a direct bearing on the case of the prosecution, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application for DNA testing, as the same would assist in arriving at a just and proper adjudication of the matter.

¶31

The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely R. Rajendran vs. Kamar Nisha & Ors. , 2025 INSC 1304 and Nathu vs. State (CRL.A. No. 242/2023), are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case.

¶32