New Delhi, May 23, 2025 — Reiterating the delicate balance between compassion and public safety, the Delhi High Court has ruled that individuals suffering from mental disabilities cannot be discharged from criminal proceedings without strict adherence to procedural safeguards under Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In State v. Neeraj, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that while the law rightly shields those with mental impairments from criminal liability, courts must not permit their unconditional release into society without proper evaluation and statutory compliance.
“Law Must Balance Protection with Public Safety”
“Persons suffering from ‘mental retardation’ may not comprehend the nature or consequences of their actions,” the Court noted, “yet the potential for recurring harm to the community cannot be ignored.” It held that judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, supported by a thorough analysis of medical evidence and an assessment of whether the accused can be managed safely at home or requires institutional care.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order that discharged one Neeraj, who had been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl. A medical board had found that Neeraj’s mental age corresponded to that of a four-year-old and classified his condition as severe mental retardation.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Chahar, contended that the trial court’s decision was premature and contrary to law. The discharge, it argued, was based solely on an IQ certificate, with no formal inquiry under Section 330 CrPC, which mandates procedures for safe custody and government reporting when the accused is of unsound mind.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
The High Court strongly criticised the trial court for failing to consider crucial statutory requirements. “The Sessions Court neither undertook any analysis of the nature of the alleged act committed by the accused nor assessed the extent of his mental retardation,” the Bench observed. Importantly, it found that the court had not relied on any expert or medical opinion to ensure that releasing the accused would not jeopardize public safety or the well-being of the accused himself.
The High Court underlined the role of Section 330 CrPC in mandating judicial satisfaction regarding the accused’s conduct and capacity for reintegration into society. “Only upon such satisfaction, along with adequate safeguards or institutional referral, can an accused suffering from unsoundness of mind be released,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court’s discharge order to the extent it failed to comply with the procedural mandate. The matter has been remanded for a fresh decision, directing the lower court to conduct a comprehensive assessment in line with Section 330.
