A survivor’s detailed, coherent account remains relevant despite schizophrenia, warranting bail refusal.

The petitioner was arrested on 13 May 2026 in connection with Pynursla P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, registered under Sections 64(2)(k), 75(l)(iii) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her 23-year-old daughter, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was described as being of unsound mind.

Investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed; the case was pending before the Trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the survivor’s mental condition affected the evidentiary value of her statement and that he had remained in custody for approximately 120 days.

The State opposed bail, arguing that schizophrenia did not render the survivor incapable of understanding or narrating the incident, and relied upon her detailed statement and an alleged eyewitness account of the petitioner forcibly pulling her by the hand.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, considering the survivor’s diagnosis of schizophrenia, the evidentiary material collected during investigation, and the period of custody.

Whether the survivor’s statement could, at the bail stage, be disregarded merely because she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases investigated or tried by specified courts.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 64(2)(k), 75(l)(iii) and 79 of the BNS, 2023.

At the bail stage, the Court was required to make a prima facie assessment of the prosecution material without conducting a detailed evaluation of evidence or conclusively deciding the merits of the case.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that a diagnosis of schizophrenia does not, by itself, establish that a person is continuously incapable of comprehending events or giving a coherent account of them.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the survivor’s statement was inherently unreliable because of her mental condition.

It noted that her account described repeated sexual assaults and was not merely an incoherent or unintelligible narration attributable to schizophrenia.

The Court also considered the prosecution’s reliance on an eyewitness who allegedly saw the petitioner pulling the survivor by the hand despite her resistance, treating that circumstance as prima facie indicative of the petitioner’s conduct and intent toward the survivor.

Although the Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits, it observed that the alleged commission of the offence against a person suffering from such a condition “speaks volume” about the petitioner’s conduct.

In light of these circumstances, the period of custody and the pendency of consideration of charge did not justify release on bail.

It held that the survivor’s diagnosis of schizophrenia did not, at that stage, invalidate or substantially diminish the prima facie value of her detailed statement, particularly when considered alongside the alleged eyewitness evidence.

The application under Section 483 BNSS was rejected as devoid of merit, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.