Mandatory medical inquiry must precede trial if accused claims mental illness; denial violates right to fair trial under BNSS.

The Petitioner, suffering from schizophrenia since 2012, was an accused in a private complaint filed in 2010 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC.

Although the Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in 2017 due to his mental condition, the Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court without deciding a pending application under Section 328 of the Cr.P.C. regarding his mental capacity.

On 23.07.2025, the Sessions Court rejected a similar application, observing that recent medical documents (post-2017) were absent and that the Petitioner appeared to understand the proceedings; consequently, charges were framed on 23.08.2025.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside these orders and remand the matter for proper enquiry.

Sections 367 and 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Sections 328-329 Cr.P.C.), mandate that if a Court has reason to believe an accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense, it must inquire into the fact and cause medical examination.

Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, requires the Court to refer proof of mental illness to a specialized Board for scrutiny.

Protection of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, ensuring a fair trial for persons with intellectual disabilities.

The High Court observed that the scheme of Sections 367 and 368 of the BNSS and the Mental Healthcare Act creates a mandatory duty for the Court—not merely a discretionary power—to investigate claims of unsoundness of mind to ensure the accused is not prejudiced.

The Court noted that the Sessions Judge rejected the application primarily due to a lack of medical documents after 2017, despite existing evidence of schizophrenia.

The High Court reasoned that the phrase "incapability of making defense" has been widened by the legislature to include "intellectual disability".

It found that the materials produced were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of incapacity, necessitating a formal reference to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist for care, treatment, and a medical report, rather than a summary dismissal by the Judge.

The prayer to remand the matter specifically to the Magistrate was refused, as the Sessions Court is equally competent to conduct the enquiry; the subsequent order of framing charges dated 23.08.2025 was made subject to the outcome of this medical enquiry.