The Gujarat High Court considered a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against a man accused of setting a police jeep on fire, with the defence asserting that he was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time of the incident. The petitioner approached the Court contending that his mental state rendered him incapable of understanding the nature of his actions, and therefore the criminal proceedings initiated against him could not be sustained under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Through his counsel, he argued that an act cannot constitute an offence if it is committed by a person who, due to mental illness, is unable to comprehend that the act is wrong or contrary to law.
The petitioner asserted that he had been diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder from a young age and had been under continuous psychiatric treatment. According to the case placed before the Court, on the day of the incident he experienced an acute psychotic episode during which he believed himself to be a fictional character, specifically “Batman.” His counsel explained that this altered mental state caused him to remove papers from the police jeep parked near a station, set them on fire, and place them back inside the vehicle. The flames subsequently spread, resulting in damage to the jeep. The petitioner maintained that this was not an intentional act of mischief or hostility but the product of a delusional episode brought on by his mental condition.
It was further argued that the petitioner had a long medical history to substantiate his claims, including records of ongoing psychological treatment and previous evaluations indicating the seriousness of his disorder. His counsel submitted that although this medical information was crucial to understanding the incident, it had not been adequately considered during the police investigation. They contended that the omission of relevant medical records from the chargesheet demonstrated a failure to properly assess the petitioner’s mental capacity, thereby undermining the basis for prosecuting him.
When the matter came before the High Court, the Single-Judge bench led by Justice Vimal K. Vyas examined the submissions and noted the statutory procedure required in cases where the accused claims unsoundness of mind. The Court observed that under the applicable legal framework, the determination of whether an accused was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence must first be made by the Magistrate. The law requires the Magistrate to seek an expert opinion, typically from a government psychiatrist, before arriving at any conclusion on the mental condition of the accused and its relevance to criminal responsibility.
In light of these procedural requirements, the High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate with an application under the relevant provisions of the BNS. The Court emphasized that only after the Magistrate’s evaluation and opinion can the larger question of quashing the FIR be considered. At this stage, the Court issued notice and listed the petition for further hearing, keeping the matter open pending the outcome of the required assessment before the Magistrate.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.