Accused with mental disabilities can't be released into society blindly; law must be followed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that while the law shields individuals with mental disabilities from unwarranted criminal liability, it does not permit them to be blindly released into society [State v Neeraj]. .Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said persons suffering from 'mental retardation' may not understand the illegality or consequences of their actions but the risk of repeated harmful behaviour to the other members of the community remains very real. It stressed that the mandate of Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be followed to ensure that accused persons suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental retardation are not released without proper safeguards or judicial satisfaction regarding their conduct and capability of being managed in their own homes.“That is why the provision mandates the court to carefully consider the nature of the act committed, assess the degree of the mental condition, seek medical or specialist opinion, and then, only upon being satisfied, release the accused with adequate safeguards or refer him to a designated facility equipped to provide the necessary care and rehabilitation,” the Bench observed..The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order discharging a man named Neeraj in a case of sexual assault of a minor girl. A medical board had concluded that Neeraj’s mental age was that of a four-year-old child and he suffers from severe ‘mental retardation’. However, the State argued that the accused was discharged solely based on an IQ certificate without conducting the mandatory inquiry as required under law. It was also contended that the trial court failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 330(2) of CrPC, which provides for detention of the accused in safe custody along with reporting the action taken to the government..Ultimately, the Bench ruled that the trial court failed to comply with Section 330 CrPC while releasing the accused. “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,” it noted. Therefore, the Court set aside the order to the extent it simply discharged Neeraj without following the procedure. The matter was sent back to the trial court for passing an order afresh in the compliance with Section 330. .Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Chahar appeared for the State. Accused Neeraj was represented by advocate Arpit Srivastava..[Read Judgment]