The court mandated adherence to mental health evaluation procedures for defendants deemed unfit to stand trial, emphasizing statutory compliance with mental health laws.

ORDER :

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1. This criminal original petition is filed to direct the learned Special Judge for POCSO Act cases at Chennai, to follow the procedure under Section 330 of Cr.PC/369 of BNSS .

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

2.1.The petitioner is the mother of one Gopala Krishnan, male, aged 47 years, now confined in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai on the directions of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai .

2.2. A complaint had been lodged by one Suresh M Iyer/de facto complainant against the petitioner’s son. The allegation in the complaint is that on 03.01.2026 at about 7.00 pm when the daughter of the de facto complainant, XXX, aged 12 years was playing on a swing with her friends in a park located in her residential area, an unidentified male entered the park and spoke to her in English and forced her to play on the swing with him. When his daughter had refused to do that, he had insisted her to sit on his lap and forced her to play on the swing after which daughter started crying. Thereafter, he misbehaved with the child by touching her inappropriately.

2.3. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.01 of 2026 was registered on 04.01.2026 by the respondent police against the petitioner’s son for offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and he was arrested by the respondent on 05.01.2026 and before production for remand, he was taken to Saidapet Government Medical Hospital for medical examination. The petitioner’s son, during medical examination, was found to be affected with Schizophrenia and the Medical Officer had recommended for Phychiatrist opinion regarding the mental condition of his son. When the petitioner was produced before the Court for remand, the learned Judge without remanding the petitioner referred him for assessment by the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, vide order dated 05.01.2026. Subsequently, the Special Court passed a detailed order on 07.01.2026 under Section 102 (1)(a) of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and for the compliance of Section 367 (1) of BNSS . Following the same, the petitioner’s son was sent to the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai.

2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai on 19.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2026 and the same was dismissed on 22.01.2026 stating that the bail application was filed without any order of remand. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s son has mental illness and is diagnosed to be suffering from Schizophrenia. When the petitioner’s son was produced for remand, the learned Judge, finding that the petitioner’s son is suffering with mental illness, had referred him for mental assessment under Section 102 (1)(a) of Mental Healthcare Act and for compliance of Section 367 (1) of BNSS . Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking bail. Though the petition was filed in the form of bail application, the learned Judge ought to have passed an order under (3) of and Section 102 (1)(b) of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It is his further submission that as per Section 102 (1)(b) of the Mental Healthcare Act, the Magistrate has power to authorise the admission of the person with mental illness in a mental health establishment for such period not exceeding ten days to enable the Medical Officer to carry out an assessment of the person and to plan for necessary treatment and as per (3) of the , pending such examination and enquiry, the Magistrate may deal with such person in accordance with the provisions of Section 369 of the . Now that the period of ten days has lapsed, the Magistrate ought to have considered the petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with (3) and 369 of the