Bombay High Court: In the present bail application, the applicant, a former CRPF personnel, sought bail in connection with offences in which he was accused of beating his wife to death while under the influence of liquor, allegedly because she could not provide a meal as per his immediate demand. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J., while disposing of the application, emphasised that if such mentally ill persons are released on bail, they continue their illegal acts and pose a constant threat due to their propensity to commit crimes against society, particularly against family members who were weaker sections and unable to confront them. Therefore, instead of releasing such persons on bail without proper treatment and rehabilitation, it is beneficial to treat them for their mental illness in the interest of society’s safety.Thus, the Court directed the Nanded District Jail Authority to send the applicant for psychiatric evaluation at the Civil Hospital and if found mentally ill due to liquor addiction, he was to be treated in a government rehabilitation centre until full recovery, as per the Mental Healthcare Act. The Court further instructed District Superintendent of Police to provide escort for the treatment.
Background:
The case arose from a report filed by the informant, who averred that her elder daughter was married to the applicant and had begotten two children. The applicant was serving in the CRPF, but due to his misconduct, as he was addicted to liquor, he was terminated from his job.
At the time, the informant’s daughter was suffering from a spleen ailment. The applicant frequently harassed her while he was under the influence of liquor. On the night of 07-05-2024, the applicant beat her, delivering fists and kicks to the left side of her chest near the spleen, in the presence of their children.
It was submitted that she suffered greatly, was admitted to the hospital, and succumbed to her injuries on 10-05-2024. It was further alleged that the beating occurred solely because she could not provide a meal to the applicant as per his immediate demand. Their two children were eyewitnesses to the incident of beating.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the allegation against the applicant in the report was that he was addicted to liquor, which was the reason for the quarrel and the subsequent murder of his wife. The Court highlighted that if a person was addicted to liquor or drugs, it created an irresistible impulse to commit overt acts. The Court explained that an irresistible impulse meant “an impulse produced by a mental disease affecting volition, as distinguished from perceptive powers, so that the person afflicted, while able to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, was unable, due to such mental disease, to resist the impulse to act.”
The Court emphasised that if a person was addicted to hooch, i.e., illicit liquor, or prohibited drugs, it was considered a mental illness as defined under Section 2(1)(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (‘Mental Healthcare Act’), which stated that it included mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Thus, the Court noted that prima facie, it appeared that the applicant suffered from a mental illness due to his addiction to liquor, as defined under the Mental Healthcare Act, where the abuse of alcohol or drugs was an essential ingredient requiring psychiatric treatment and psychological counselling for curing his illness.
The Court highlighted that children and women commonly suffered from the serious overt acts of the addicts. Moreover, they also caused vehicular accidents by rash and negligent driving under the influence of liquor and drugs and also were found committing offences like murder, rape, outraging the modesty of women, extortion, robbery, theft, etc., to satisfy their desires and often under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to obtain money needed to purchase these substances. Though they suffered from mental illness, the Court noted that they were often harshly condemned due to a lack of awareness about mental illness instead of being considered sympathetically, as other illnesses were treated.
The Court noted that there are strong legal and factual grounds for not releasing alcohol and drug addicts on bail, as they are likely to commit crimes in the future due to their mental illness, as provided under Sections 480 read with 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and judicial pronouncements.
Therefore, instead of releasing such persons on bail without proper treatment and rehabilitation, the Court pointed out that it iss beneficial to treat them for their mental illness in the interest of society’s safety. The Court opined that if this course is followed by police, jail authorities, and courts, then it would reduce crimes and relieve society from the legal mischief of such persons, fulfilling the objective of the reformative theory of punishment.
Thus, the Court directed that the applicant be sent for psychiatric evaluation. Additionally, the Court directed all trial and remand courts in Maharashtra to ensure psychiatric examination and treatment of accused persons prima facie found addicted to liquor or drugs. The Court held that outpatient or private treatment was insufficient and emphasised the need for government rehabilitation. The Court further issued directions to police, jail authorities, and Courts to act without waiting for higher orders.
The Court also instructed the Registrar General of the Court to circulate the order to all relevant authorities. The Court also directed the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to organise awareness programs so that there will be a change in the mindset of society, particularly the general public and law enforcers, that instead of hating such addicted persons, they shall be treated with sympathy and empathy, like other illnesses.
The Court, thus, while disposing of the application, granted leave to withdraw the application with directions.
[Pramod Wamanrao Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No.740 of 2025, decided on 25-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by V. R. Dhorde
For the Respondent: R. S. Wani, APP
