The bail application was moved by one Ajay, who was accused of assault and other associated offenses. 

While granting bail to an accused on the ground for mental sickness, the Himachal Pradesh High Court commented that there is an inclination among individuals and society not to regard mental issues as disease and to disregard it or select strict cures (Ajay v. State of Himachal Pradesh). 

Justice Anoop Chitkara saw in the request, 

“The way that the accused is being given treatment in PGI Chandigarh, which is a prestigious foundation, itself, shows the earnestness of his disease. Moreover, there is an inclination among individuals and the general public not to regard mental issues as sickness and, along these lines, either disregard it or go for strict cures. 

The petitioner, who is experiencing genuine psychological maladjustment, can’t be left in this stage in jail. So when his family has attempted to give treatment on their own. On this ground, the petitioner is entitled for bail.” 

The Court along these lines allowed bail to the charged on the ground that the stipulation to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure (CrPC) states that in any event, for offenses culpable with life detainment or capital punishment, the Court might release a sick individual on bail. 

“The Petitioner, who is experiencing genuine dysfunctional behavior, can’t be left in this stage in jail. More so, when his family has attempted to give treatment on this own.” 

-Himachal Pradesh HC 

The bail application was moved by one Ajay, who was accused of assault and other associated offenses. The Court had previously dismissed his bail application on merits. Yet, this time, the candidate squeezed for dysfunctional behavior as a ground for conceding bail. 

Ajay was accused of assaulting a minor young lady (victim) whom he had vowed to wed. After the episode, he cautioned the victim not to tell anybody. He had vowed to meet the victim’s family to examine marriage the next day. Be that as it may, he departed suddenly and never returned to meet the person in question. 

At some point, the inconsolable victim left her home and went to Paonta Sahiba, Later, one Shalu attempted to reassure the victim when she tracked down her sitting alone and took her to an alternate city where she was constrained into sex traficking. She was in this way assaulted on different occasions at the command of Shalu, who got installment from the attackers. 

On January 30, the victim’s uncle came to realize that she is in an escort organization and Shalu likewise came to realize that the victim’s uncle knows about her area. 

The victim was approached to leave the spot for 3-4 days and, from that point forward, to return once more. She figured out how to get away from the grasp of Shalu and got back. 

At the point when the police came to think about the said episode and the victim gave an assertion, the accused were captured and the official responsible for the police headquarters recorded a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. 

The First Information Report (FIR) was under Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping), Section 366A (procuration of minor girl), Section 376 (Rape), Section 370A (exploitation of a trafficked person) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

On the subject of Ajay’s mental illness, even the State didn’t deny something very similar. It explicitly expressed that the petitioner is going through treatment from PGI Chandigarh from the Branch of Psychiatry. 

The petitioner stated that the examination is finished and his custody is unwarranted.

Then again, Additional Advocate  General (AAG) Nand Lal Thakur went against the bail application and said that the role  of the accused in constraining a weak minor young lady into flesh trade can’t be disregarded. 

As needs be, considering the state of mind of the accused, the Court thought of it as a fit case for bail. 

The bail was conceded with dependent upon the accompanying extra conditions, among others 

The Petitioner  will neither engage one of the gazes, tail, make any signals, comments, call, contact, message the person in question, either in person, or through call or some other online media, nor meander around the victim’s home. 

The petitioner should remain far away from the spot of the event while on bail. Along these lines, the petitioner will not enter inside a span of one kilometer from her home. 

The petitioner was additionally coordinated to outfit an individual obligation of ₹10,000 and either two guarantees of ₹25,000 each or a fixed deposit  of ₹10,000.