An inconclusive forensic report is no reason to close a bribery probe, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, upholding a Special Judge’s order for Fresh Voice Samples of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and further investigation.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of police challenging a Special Court’s refusal to accept the closure report in a bribery case against him, and its direction for further investigation including the collection of his fresh voice samples [Sanjay Sisodiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Deepak Khot passed the order on October 23, 2026. Justice Deepak Khot wrote the order.
The case
The petitioner, ASI Sanjay Sisodiya, had investigated a cheating case under Section 420 IPC filed by Karan Gurjar against his landlord. Gurjar alleged that the ASI demanded Rs 30,000 for conducting the probe, and in a second complaint the same day alleged a demand of Rs 10,000 as illegal gratification.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police gave the complainant a digital voice recorder to capture the conversation, with a head constable as shadow witness. An FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered as Crime No. 82/2024. The trap was attempted two or three times but failed, as the ASI was not found at the police station.
The recorded voice samples were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal. A closure report dated March 12, 2026 followed, stating that the transcript showed no direct or indirect demand and that the laboratory had given no opinion for want of suitable speech data. On July 22, 2026, the Special Judge (PC Act), Bhopal rejected the closure report and directed further investigation, including fresh voice samples of the petitioner.
The arguments
Senior Advocate Anil Khare, with Advocate Priyank Agrawal, argued for the ASI that fresh voice sampling amounted to a roving inquiry and violated the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). He contended that the trap failed without any recovery, the complainant had no objection to the closure report, and even a voice match could not prove a demand.
For the State, Advocate Abhinav Shrivastava submitted that a court is not bound by a closure report and can direct further investigation, that taking a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3), and that the complainant’s no-objection does not bind the court.
What the Court held
The Bench found that the transcript itself prima facie disclosed an offence. Pointing to the Explanation to Section 7, which covers even an attempt to obtain gratification, it observed:
“it is not the case that the offence is not made out on the face value of the report or the material.”
On the forensic report, the Court noted that the laboratory had not said the voices did not match. It had flagged a large variation in the speaker’s voice, suggesting deliberate disguise. The Bench held:
“the sample which was sent to the FSL was inappropriate and insufficient to form an opinion”
A closure report resting on such material, it said, does not lead to the conclusion that no offence is made out on the evidence collected. The Court also remarked that the investigator “ought to have conducted the investigation honestly and carefully.”
Relying on Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P. and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, the Bench reiterated that a court may accept a closure report, take cognizance despite it, or order further investigation if dissatisfied. On Article 20(3), it relied on Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court affirmed that a magistrate can direct an accused to give a voice sample, and found Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke inapplicable at this stage.
“the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality, irregularity, much less jurisdictional error”
The petition was dismissed without costs. The allegations against the ASI remain untested, the High Court’s observations are confined to the validity of the order for further investigation, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
The ruling reaffirms that a closure report does not bind the court. Where the investigating agency’s own material points to a possible offence, a judge can refuse to close the case and send it back for a proper probe, whatever the complainant’s stand.
It also makes clear that a forensic laboratory’s inability to give an opinion is not the same as a finding that voices do not match. In trap cases built on audio recordings, an inconclusive report caused by poor or insufficient samples is a reason to collect better samples, and following Ritesh Sinha, an accused cannot resist that step by invoking the right against self-incrimination.
Case Title: Sanjay Sisodiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [Writ Petition No. 34200 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:85170
Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Deepak Khot, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 23, 2026
For the Petitioner: Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Priyank Agrawal, Advocate
For the State: Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate
