1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused Officer No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2026 in Crime No.17/RCTACB- KMM/2025, ACB, Khammam, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal, (for short, ‘the Special Court’), whereby the petition filed by the respondent/Investigating Officer seeking a direction to the petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 to appear before the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad and to cooperate 4 in providing their voice samples and permitting the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps for sending the voice samples and audio recording for scientific comparison and analysis, was allowed.

2. Heard Mr. B. Balraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Raja Shekar, learned counsel, representing Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing on behalf of respondent-complainant.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/Investigating Officer filed a petition under Section 349 of the BNSS read with Section 39(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, ‘the BSA’) seeking a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad and to cooperate in providing his voice samples and permitting the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps to send the voice samples and audio recording for scientific comparison and analysis and the same is not permissible under law, especially, there is no conversation between the petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 or with the complainant, namely Mukthi Durga Devi.

               3.2. He further submitted that the petitioner has not made any demand or the complainant has not made any offer to the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the petitioner or in the absence of any iota of evidence that there is conversation between the petitioner with Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 in relation to the alleged demand for illegal gratification, and when there is no identification of any specific conversation or material indicating any demand or instructions by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has filed the petition mechanically.

               3.3. He further submitted that to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, (for short, ‘the P.C. Act’) a demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the P.C. Act. In the present case, the prosecution has not placed any material about demand made for illegal gratification by the petitioner, either in the complaint or during the trap proceedings or in the alleged conversation between him and other Accused Officers. He also submitted that before seeking a direction for the collection of a specimen voice sample, the Investigating Officer ought to have established the foundational facts, namely, there exists a genuine and disputed voice recording relevant to the investigation and that forensic comparison of such recording is necessary. In the absence of the same, the Investigating Officer filed Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2026 before the Special Court.

               3.4. He further submitted that even according to the verbatim and conversations dated 13.11.2025, 14.11.2025, 15.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 relied upon by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner never spoke to the complainant nor accompanied the witness and he never demanded any bribe for official favour and there is no iota of evidence to establish that the petitioner demanded bribe from the complainant for extending any official favour. In spite of the same, the learned Special Court allowed the petition and passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to law and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

4. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent:

4.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, along with Accused Officer No.2, demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and accepted the same through Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3. The demand and acceptance of the bribe were recorded through a spy gadget provided by the ACB officials, which contained three memory cards. He further submitted that comparison of the petitioner’s voice sample with the verbatim of the conversation between him and other Accused Officers is necessary for the purpose of investigation and to corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, the petition filed by the Investigating Officer is very much maintainable under law. The learned Special Court, after hearing the respective parties, allowed the petition by giving cogent reasons and there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same does not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

               4.2. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bangal & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2219); and the order of this Court in Thodeti Satyanarayana and another v. The State of Telangana (Crl.R.C.No.235 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026)

Analysis :

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and Accused Officer No.2 demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and on the instructions of the petitioner, Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. The demand and acceptance of the bribe were recorded on 17.11.2025 through a spy gadget provided by the ACB officials, which contained three memory cards. The petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 17.11.2025. Based on the verbatim and conversations recorded between Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 and the complainant on 13.11.2025, 14.11.2025 and 15.11.2025, as well as the audio and video recordings contained in the memory card used in the spy gadget on the day of acceptance i.e., on 17.11.2025, the Investigating Officer filed Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2026 invoking the provisions of Section 349 of the BNSS read with Section 39(2) of the BSA seeking a direction to the petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 to appear before the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, and to cooperate in providing their voice samples and further seeking permission for the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps to send the voice samples and audio recordings for scientific comparison and analysis.

6. The learned Special Court after considering the contentions of the respective parties and duly taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ((2019) 8 SCC 1), allowed the petition by its order dated 09.09.2026 and directed the petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 to appear before the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, on 24.09.2026 at 10.30 A.M. and the Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, was directed to collect the voice samples of the Accused Officers, for the purpose of comparison and for furnishing an opinion and report.

7. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never spoke to the complainant or given any instructions to Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 to collect bribe from the complainant or demanded the bribe from the complainant for any official favour and that there was no conversation between the petitioner and Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe, in such circumstances, the trial Court should have dismiss the petition, on the other hand, allowed the same through impugned order and the same is a clear abuse of the process of law is concerned, the specific case of the respondent is that the petitioner and Accused Officer No.2 has demanded a bribe from complainant and Accused officer Nos.2 and 3 accepted the bribe amount from the complainant on the date of trap i.e., on 17.11.2025, and the demand and acceptance of bribe were recorded through a spy gadget provided by the ACB officials, which contained three memory cards, and also verbatim and conversations between Accused Officer Nos.2 and 3 and the complainant on 13.11.2025, 14.11.2025 and 15.11.2025 was recorded in audio, and for the purpose of scientific comparison and investigation, the voice samples of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Special Court rightly exercised the discretionary powers vested upon it and passed the impugned order.

8. In Rahul (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while following the precedent in Ritesh Sinha (supra), held that a Judicial Magistrate is having power to issue a direction to the accused or witness to furnish a voice sample for the purpose of comparison even in the absence of an express provision in the Cr.P.C., as such furnishing such voice sample does not amount to testimonial compulsion or violate the protection against self-incrimination. A voice sample, like a fingerprint, signature or handwriting, is merely physical evidence which by itself does not incriminate the person; it becomes incriminating only upon comparison with material collected during investigation. Therefore, obtaining such a sample does not attract the prohibition under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This principle has subsequently received statutory recognition under Section 349 of the BNSS.

9. In Thodeti Satyanarayana (supra), this Court held that as per Section 349 of the BNSS, a Magistrate of the First Class is empowered to order any person, including an accused or witness, to provide voice samples, fingerprints or handwriting for the purposes of investigation or proceedings. Therefore, where such express statutory provision exists, collection of a voice sample constitutes material evidence and does not amount to testimonial compulsion. Consequently, an order passed by the Magistrate directing collection of a voice sample under Section 348 BNSS cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the learned Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2026 and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.