Patna High Court

Aarti DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRAVEEN KUMAR

Holding

The trial court's rejection of the petitioner's request for re‑DNA testing was not erroneous, and the application to quash that order was dismissed.

Summary

Aarti Devi, a victim of prolonged sexual exploitation by Arjun Kumar, gave birth to a child and sought a re‑DNA test of the child through the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory. The Exclusive Special Court POCSO‑III had rejected her application, prompting her to file a petition to quash that order. She argued that the original DNA testing suffered from chain‑of‑custody lapses and that a fresh test was necessary for natural justice. The State opposed the petition, contending that the earlier DNA report had been prepared in compliance with prescribed procedures. The High Court examined the record and noted that the DNA report had already been completed and duly exhibited, and that at this late stage the petitioner could not challenge its genuineness. The Court held that the Supreme Court precedent cited by the petitioner was factually dissimilar and not applicable. Consequently, the application to quash the order was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's request for a re‑DNA test can be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh DNA test at the stage of trial.
Whether the Supreme Court decision in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125

Subjects

sexual exploitation
DNA testing
re‑DNA test
POCSO
chain of custody
criminal procedure
court order quash

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1302 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Aarti Devi S/o- Late Raghunath Sah village and PS- Saraiya District-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arjun Kumar S/o- Sri Suresh Sah village and PS- Saraiya District-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mf. Bela Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
CAV ORDER

3 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing

the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned

Exclusive Special Court POCSO-III, Muzaffarpur in Sessions

Trial No. 399 of 2023, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 61 of

2020, whereby the application of the petitioner/informant for

Re-D.N.A. Test through Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory

(CFSL) has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner/victim

was sexually exploited by the accused, namely, Arjun Kumar,

for about 10 years as a result of which she gave birth to a child.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
2/7

that the victim-informant filed a petition for a direction for re-

D.N.A. Test of the child allegedly born out of sexual

exploitation of the informant by opposite party No.2. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was

filed stating that D.N.A. evidence required proper

documentation and handling from collection to analysis and

break in the chain of custody protocol can raise doubt about the

evidence as regards tampering and errors or contamination

during collection, storage and testing and as such can lead to

incorrect result. It has been further submitted that the date of

sample collection of D.N.A. is not mentioned and it is only

mentioned in the D.N.A. report that your Memo/letter No. NIL

dated 27.09.2024 advising dispatch of one parcel received on

03.10.2024, whereas D.N.A. report was prepared after 27 days,

which is against the instructions of D.N.A. testing and the

petitioner is ready for re-D.N.A. testing and, therefore, has

submitted that in the facts and circumstances, it would be

necessary to order for re-D.N.A. testing under the supervision

and direction of the learned trial court for proper adjudication

and natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed

in the case of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
3/7

Badwaik, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 576. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court having observed in paragraph 5 of the said judgment as

under: -

5. Taking note of the challenge to the
paternity of the child, this Court by order dated 10-
1-2011 [Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal
Badwaik, SLP (Cri) No. 8852 of 2008, order dated
10-1-2011 (SC)] passed the following order:
“1. … However, the petitioner husband
had challenged the paternity of the child and
had claimed that no maintenance ought to
have been awarded to the child. The
petitioner had also applied for referring the
child for DNA test, which was refused. It is
against the said order of refusal that the
present special leave petition was filed and
the same prayer for conducting the DNA test
was made before us. On 8-11-2010 [Nandlal
Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik,
SLP (Cri) No. 8852 of 2008, order dated 8-
11-2010 (SC), wherein it was directed:
“1. Although, a prayer for filing
rejoinder has been made on behalf of the
petitioner, having regard to the facts
involved, we are also inclined to give certain
directions while adjourning the matter for
filing rejoinder. The dispute regarding the
paternity of the child, for whom an amount
of Rs 500 has been directed to be paid by
way of maintenance, was raised by the
petitioner at the very first instance in his
written objection to the application filed on
behalf of the respondent wife under Section
125 CrPC for maintenance. The explanation
given on behalf of the respondent wife
regarding conception through the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
4/7

was accepted by the trial court as well as the
Revisional Court. However, the question of
paternity was never considered in the light
of the prayer made by the petitioner before
the High Court for conducting a DNA test,
which would have scientifically put an end to
the dispute.
2. However, we have also been informed
that no amount has been paid by the
petitioner either to the wife or to the
daughter in terms of the order passed by the
learned Magistrate. While we are inclined to
consider the petitioner's prayer for having a
DNA test conducted, we are also of the view
that until all dues are paid in terms of the
order passed by the learned Magistrate,
such a DNA test cannot be allowed to be
conducted.
3. Accordingly, we adjourn this matter for
a period of six weeks for the present, within
which time all dues payable both to the wife
and the child in terms of the order of the
learned Magistrate dated 20-3-2006, are to
be paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, we shall
consider giving directions with regard to the
holding of a DNA test of the child to
determine her paternity. List this matter
immediately after six weeks.”]
we had accordingly, directed the
petitioner husband to deposit all dues, both
arrears and current, in respect of the
maintenance awarded to the wife and child
to enable us to consider the prayer for
holding of such DNA test. Such deposit
having been made on 3-1-2011, we had
agreed [Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata
Nandlal Badwaik, SLP (Cri) No. 8852 of
2008, order dated 3-1-2011 (SC), wherein it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
5/7

was directed:“From the application for
directions, it appears that the arrears of
maintenance directed to be deposited have
been duly deposited and receipt thereof has
been acknowledged by the respondent wife.
The said sum of Rs 95,400 is the amount of
arrears payable till 20-12-2010. In that view
of the matter, we are inclined to allow the
petitioner's prayer for conducting DNA test
to ascertain the paternity of the child. Let
this matter be adjourned for a week to
enable the counsel for the respective parties
to take instructions as to where and in what
manner such test can be conducted, either in
Maharashtra or in Hyderabad.”] to allow
the petitioner's prayer for conducting DNA
test for ascertaining the paternity of the
child.
2. We have since been informed by the
counsel for the parties that a forensic
science laboratory in Nagpur conducts the
very same test, as has been asked for by the
petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the
petitioner Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik and
Respondent 1 Ms Lata Nandlal Badwaik to
make a joint application to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Nagpur, situated at Jail
Road, Dhantoli, for conducting such test.
The petitioner, as well as Respondent 1, shall
present themselves at the laboratory with
Respondent 2 for the said purpose on the
date to be fixed by the laboratory, and,
thereafter, the laboratory is directed to send
the result of such test to this Court within
four weeks thereafter. The expenses for the
test to be conducted shall be borne by the
petitioner husband.”
In the light of the aforesaid order, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
6/7

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,
Nagpur has submitted the result of DNA
testing and opined that appellant “Nandlal
Vasudev Badwaik is excluded to be the
biological father of Netra alias Neha
Nandlal Badwaik”, Respondent 2 herein.”

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of

the petitioner.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions

of the parties, it transpires from the impugned order itself that

earlier, a petition, dated 05.06.2025, was filed on behalf of the

informant before the learned court wherein it was stated in

paragraph 4 that all the procedure of the D.N.A. report were

duly completed and the instruction prescribed for the D.N.A.

Test were strictly followed and on the prayer of the informant

the said D.N.A. report also came to be exhibited as P-8. The

learned trial court has rightly observed in the impugned order

that at such a belated stage, the informant cannot question the

genuineness of the said D.N.A. report contradicting her own

statement and rejection of the prayer of the informant for re-

D.N.A. profiling by the trial court is not erroneous. So far as the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the

petitioner is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts

and circumstances of the present case and the facts of that case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1302 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
7/7

are completely different.

7. No interference is warranted with the impugned

order in the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove.

8. This application is devoid of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 18.03.2026
Uploading Date 08.04.2026
Transmission Date 08.04.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…