This revision arises out of dismissal of bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.3962 of 2015 filed in P.R.C.No.1 of 2015 under Section 330 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is a CISF [Central Industrial Security Force] Constable. He was carrying out his duties at the Atomic Energy Power Station in Kalpakkam. On 08.10.2014, with his service rifle he is alleged to have shot dead three persons and also wounded one person.

3. Respondent police registered a case in Crime No.241 of 2014 under Section 307, 302 I.P.C. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Now, it is pending in S.C.No.242 of 2015 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalput.

4. While the said case was pending in P.R.C. No.1 of 2015 (Preliminary Register Case) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3962 of 2015 has been filed under Section 330 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail.

5. The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry. A Medical officer attached to the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk submitted his report to the effect that the accused is a person of unsound mind, he is improving and he is found fit to stand the trial. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dismissing his bail petition.

6. Aggrieved, this revision has been directed.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has history of psychiatric ailment. Since 2007, in his home State in U.P., he was treated for paranoid Schizophrenia, a mental illness. Even the medical record would show that he has been under medication for mental illness. And some medication also has been prescribed for him. The Doctor also advised that if he is left in the company of his relatives it would be beneficial for his health. In such circumstances, denying him bail under Section 330 Cr.P.C is not in accordance with law. The impugned order suffers from legality.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned Magistrate conducted due enquiry under Section 329 Cr.P.C. As per the medical records, the accused has been treated for his mental illness and he is fit to understand the trial. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate dismissed his bail petition, it is in accordance with law.

9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and the materials on record.

10. Now the question is whether the impugned order dated 20.10.2015 passed under Section 330 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate suffers from any legality or propriety?

11. Mere act, unaccompanied by any guilty mind, will not be an offence is a basis of Criminal Law. The 'blameworthy conduct' of a person has to be deduced from his mental make up, his frame of mind. If it is good, no problem; when it is bad, problem arises. We call it 'guilty mind'. In legal term, it is mensrea; but at the same time, mere mensrea without any overt act will not be an offence. But, in law, under certain circumstances there may be overt act, but will not be an offence in view of absence of mensrea. In such cases, mensrea cannot be imputed to the accused.

12. Under the Indian Penal Code, for most of the offences, 'Mensrea' has been made an essential ingredient. It has been expressed in different forms. It could also be gathered from Section 81 IPC. One of its exception is Section 84 IPC dealing with overt acts of persons of unsound mind.

13. The very Section 84 IPC is modelled on the celebrated English decision in R vs. Mc Maughten (1843)10 CI & F 200 (T.A.C.). The crux of the principle is that the mind of the person is such that at the time of committing the offence he did not know what he was doing is contrary to law or wrong. He is incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. (Also see Chapter XXV Cr.P.C. and KENNY'S Outlines of Criminal Law (19th Edn. Page 83).

14. At the time of offence, the accused is not the Master of his mind. 'Insanity' can be raised as a defence in a Criminal case. It is 'Ple