When Discharging Accused With Mental Retardation, Courts Must Consider Whether Release Poses Threat To Public Safety: Delhi High Court

It reasoned that while such persons may not be criminally liable in the conventional sense, they may still pose a threat to the society if not placed under appropriate supervision or care.

Referring to Section 330 CrPC, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed,

“This Court is fully mindful of the legal protections extended to individuals suffering from mental retardation or unsoundness of mind. Such protections are rooted in compassion and in the understanding that a person who is incapable of comprehending the nature or consequences of his actions should not be subjected to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course. However, this Court is equally conscious of the corresponding duty to ensure the safety of society at large. It must be remembered that while the law shields individuals with mental disabilities from unwarranted criminal liability, it does not – and cannot – permit a blind discharge of such individuals into society without a proper and informed judicial assessment.”

The observation was made while dealing with a case where the Sessions Court had discharged and ordered release of a rape accused, found to be having mental age of mere four years.

The prosecution argued that the Sessions Court failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 330(2) of CrPC, which provides for detention of the accused in safe custody.

Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand argued that the discharge was based on the authoritative findings of the Medical Board, which confirmed severe mental retardation, and also the fact that there was no scope of any improvement ever in the mental condition of the respondent.

At the outset, the High Court noted that Section 330 of CrPC sets out the procedure for release of a person of unsound mind pending investigation or pending trial.

Subsection (1) and (2) of Section 330 deals with release of an accused on bail, who has been found incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental retardation, either under Section 328 or 329 of CrPC.

Section 330(1) provides that such an accused can be released on bail if his condition does not require in-patient treatment, and a relative or friend undertakes to care for and prevent the accused from causing harm to himself or any one.

However, if these conditions are not met, the accused – as per Section 330(2) – must be detained in safe custody in a suitable facility where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided

On the other hand, Section 330(3) sets out the procedure to be followed while considering the release of such an accused and whether he can be discharged or not.

Clause (a) enables the concerned Court to order the discharge and release of the accused, after considering the medical or the specialist opinion, subject to the condition that the Court shall satisfy itself that – the accused shall not do any injury to himself or to any other person.

Clause (b) provides that if the concerned Court is of the opinion that the accused cannot be discharged, the Court is vested with the power to – order the transfer of the accused to a designated residential facility. Such a facility must be meant for persons suffering from unsoundness of mind, or mental retardation. Further, the facility must provide care, as well as appropriate education and training to the accused.

Thus the Court was of the opinion that the underlying aim of Section 330(3) of CrPC is to strike a delicate balance between the safety of the public, and the rights, dignity, and well-being of an accused found to be of unsound mind or suffering from mental retardation.

“Recognizing that such an accused person may lack the capacity to stand trial, this provision ensures that he is not subjected to unnecessary prosecution while also safeguarding society from potential harm. By mandating a judicial assessment of the nature of the alleged act and the extent of the mental condition, the law empowers the court concerned to decide as to whether the accused can be safely discharged upon sufficient security or needs to be placed in a specialized residential facility for care, training, and supervision,” the Court held.

In the facts of the case, the High Court held that it was incumbent upon the Sessions Court to conduct an assessment under Section 330(3) to determine whether the accused, considering the nature of the alleged act and the extent of mental retardation, could be discharged and safely released upon sufficient security, or could not be discharged and was required to be sent to a suitable residential facility for care, education, and training.

However, it noted that the Sessions Court neither undertook any analysis of the nature of the alleged act committed by the accused nor assessed the degree and extent of his mental retardation to arrive at a reasoned conclusion as to whether he could be safely discharged.

“There is also no indication in the impugned order that the learned Sessions Court considered any medical or specialist opinion to satisfy itself that the accused would not pose a danger to himself or to others if released…if the accused could not be safely released, the Court was under a statutory obligation to explore the option of referring him to a designated residential facility under clause (b), which also went unconsidered,” the Court said and remanded the matter back to the Sessions Court for passing an order afresh in compliance with Section 330.

Appearance: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State; Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Adv. for Respondents

Case title: State v. Neeraj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 763/2017

Click here to read judgment