Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Karmali @ Binod Karmali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2025
------
Vinod Karmali @ Binod Karmali, aged about 47 years, son of Late
Shivlal Karmali, resident of village-Honhemorha (Nawadih), P.O.-
Chainpur, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Most. Parvati Devi W/o not known to the petitioner, resident of
village & P.O.-Nawadih, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in Sessions Trial No.82 of
2015 whereby and whereunder the petition of the petitioner for
exemption from DNA Profile Test has been rejected.
3. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court in
connection with the said Sessions Trial No.82 of 2015.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused person
of Sessions Trial No.82 of 2015 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh involving the offences
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated
02.12.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge,
FTC, Ramgarh allowed the petition dated 27.06.2021 filed by the
informant/victim through the Additional Public Prosecutor for the DNA
Profile Test of the victim, the petitioner and the twin children claimed to
have been born out of the rape committed by the petitioner upon the
victim. The said order dated 02.12.2021 was passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh after
hearing of the objection of the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.
No.125 of 2022 before the co-ordinate bench of this Court and the co-
ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2022 do not find any
illegality in the said order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh in Sessions
Trial No.82 of 2015 and dismissed the Cr.M.P. No.125 of 2022. The
undisputed facts remains that the petitioner has not challenged the order
passed by the co-ordinate bench in Cr.M.P. No.125 of 2022 dated
19.04.2022 and the same has attained finality but instead of challenging
the said order dated 19.04.2022 in Cr.M.P. No.125 of 2022, the petitioner
filed a fresh petition dated 15.04.2023 with the prayer to exempt the
petitioner from the DNA Profile Test in the interest of justice. In the said
petition, the petitioner mentioned the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
Another reported in (1993) 3 SCC 418, in paragraph-26 of which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down, under what
circumstances, a court can or cannot order blood test.
6. In the said petition dated 15.04.2023 filed before the trial Court, the
petitioner also mentioned the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Gupta & Others reported
in (2022) 1 SCC 20, in which case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
approbated the opinion of Justice S.B. Sinha in the case of Sharda vs.
Dharmpal reported in (2003) 4 SCC 493 to the effect that, if despite an
order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such
medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference can
be made out against the person within the ambit of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act.
7. The petitioner in the said petition also mentioned the judgment of
the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Afan Ansari vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023 (1) East Cr C 370 (Jhr),
wherein the co-ordinate bench in the facts of that case held that there is no
illegality in the order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,
Ranchi by which the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Ranchi rejected the
petition filed by the petitioner before the trial court with the prayer for his
DNA examination and also the DNA examination of the child.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC,
Ramgarh while passing the order impugned in this criminal
miscellaneous petition, considered that the prayer for DNA Profile Test
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, FTC, Ramgarh vide order dated 02.12.2021 after considering the
objection raised by the petitioner and in his objection, the petitioner did
not rely upon any of the judgments mentioned in the petition filed in the
trial court in his earlier written objection to the earlier petition filed by the
prosecution. The learned trial court also considered that, Cr.M.P. No.125
of 2022 filed challenging the said order has also been dismissed by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court on 19.04.2022; but the petitioner did not
comply the order of the Court to remain present before the Civil Surgeon;
but instead, after about a year of the dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No.125
of 2022, only on 15.04.2023, the petitioner filed the petition to exempt him
from DNA Profile Test, which in effect amounts to nullifying the order
dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh and rejected the petition to exempt the
petitioner from DNA Profile Test.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated
17.08.2024 is not sustainable in law, as the learned trial Court committed
an error in not taking into consideration, the prayer made by the
informant to fill up the lacuna. It is then submitted that although the
petition dated 26.07.2021 was filed under Section 311 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure but the nature of prayer made therein is under
Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that
the order for DNA Profile Test was passed without considering the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases which have
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
been mentioned in the petition dated 15.04.2023, hence, it is lastly
submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that since the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh in
Sessions Trial No.82 of 2015 has attained finality after Cr.M.P. No.125 of
2022 filed challenging the same was dismissed; there was no scope for the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh to
pass any contrary order or to recall that order on the ground that the same
was passed by not considering one or other judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India; when such order was never placed before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh,
when the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC,
Ramgarh was passing the order dated 02.12.2021 nor such judgments
were placed before the co-ordinate bench of this Court while the co-
ordinate bench of this court passing the judgment in Cr.M.P. No.125 of
2022. It is lastly submitted that there is no absolute bar for DNA Profile
Test and the petitioner is at liberty not to give his blood for DNA Profile
Test but the consequence as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Gupta & Others
(supra) therefor will follow if the petitioner refuses to submit himself to
such DNA profile test. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being
without any merit, be dismissed.
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is
of the considered view that the petition dated 15.04.2023 filed by the
petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, FTC, Ramgarh is in effect a petition to review its order dated
02.12.2021 passed in the said case. As the order dated 02.12.2021 was
passed without considering certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, which were not placed before the said court by the
petitioner, though the petitioner took part in hearing of the said petition
nor such judgments were placed before the co-ordinate bench of this
Court while the co-ordinate bench of this court was passing the judgment
in Cr.M.P. No.125 of 2022. The said judgements, as already indicated
above, do not make any absolute bar for DNA Profile Test of any person
nor such judgements denude the courts of its jurisdiction to order for such
test. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. in the case of Ashok
Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Gupta & Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has categorically mentioned the consequences, if despite an order
passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to give DNA
Profile Test. Since, the order dated 02.12.2021 has attained finality so as
the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Cr.M.P.
No.125 of 2022, hence, this Court is of the considered view that learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh has not
committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner in
his petition dated 15.04.2023 to exempt him from the DNA Profile Test.
( 2025:JHHC:33080 )
Hence, the same do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise
of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.
13. In view of disposal of this Cr.M.P., the I.A. No.4138 of 2025 is
disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of November, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 07/11/2025
