Case at a Glance
Hearing the fourth bail application of a man accused in a 2024 gang-rape case in Mandsaur district, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the survivor was still not in a condition to depose and needed further treatment, including psychological care. Rejecting bail, the Court held that the survivor is entitled to free treatment at government and private hospitals under Section 397 of the BNSS, and observed that delays in compensation or treatment amount to “second victimization”. It directed the District Legal Services Authority to ensure interim compensation and provide an experienced advocate for the survivor, and directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education, to ensure Section 397 compliance by all hospitals and diagnostic centres in the State.
The applicant is an accused in a 2024 crime registered at Police Station Y.D. Nagar, District Mandsaur, under Sections 365, 376, 376(D), 376(2)(L) and 34 IPC and Section 92(D) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He has been in custody since 23 March 2024. His earlier bail applications were dismissed on 21 July 2025 (on merits), 27 October 2025 and 30 April 2026, and he filed a fourth application under Section 483 of the BNSS.
On 24 July 2026 the High Court had directed all duty holders to support the survivor so that her statement could be recorded. Reports from the trial court (29 July 2026) and from the District Legal Services Authority, Mandsaur (18 September 2026) stated that she was not yet in a condition to depose and needed further treatment, including psychological treatment. The Court also noted a DNA report of 25 July 2024 that was positive for the applicant, and that it had not been told whether interim compensation under the State scheme had been paid.
The Key Question Before the Court
While a survivor of sexual violence is still unable to testify, what obligations do the State, hospitals and legal services authorities owe her, and should the accused be released on bail?
From a bail hearing to a survivor’s right to care
Justice Gajendra Singh held that “At present no case for bail is made out and the application is rejected.” The Court went on to stress that “the victim requires proper care, treatment, compensation and rehabilitation”, and reproduced Section 397 of the BNSS, which begins “All hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government” and requires them to give immediate first-aid or medical treatment free of cost to victims of specified offences, including those under Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 of the BNS and certain POCSO offences, and to inform the police immediately.
Observing that compliance with Section 397 is often not achieved without judicial intervention, the Court held that delay in compensation or treatment “is tantamount to second victimization of survivor inviting liability for non-compliance of mandate of law.” It also noted that in rape and gang-rape cases survivors often suffer because legal assistance is unavailable, and therefore asked the DLSA to provide a competent and experienced advocate to protect her rights before the trial court and authorities, in coordination with her parents. The order does not cite any precedent; it rests on the statutory mandate of Section 397.
What the Court Actually Held
- The fourth bail application was rejected, as no case for bail was made out at present.
- A survivor of the specified offences is entitled to free treatment at both government and private hospitals under Section 397 of the BNSS; delay in compensation or treatment amounts to second victimisation and invites liability for non-compliance.
- The DLSA Secretary, Mandsaur, must ensure interim compensation if not already provided, and provide a competent, experienced advocate for the survivor; all duty holders must ensure medical, psychological and counselling support and transport to the trial court until she recovers.
- The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical Education, must ensure Section 397 compliance in government and private hospitals and diagnostic centres across Madhya Pradesh and issue directions to District Magistrates and Chief Medical and Health Officers.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Section 397 BNSS gives survivors a legal right to free immediate treatment at any hospital, but awareness and compliance remain uneven; this order pushes for State-wide implementation.
- It treats delays in compensation and care as a further harm to survivors, not a mere administrative lapse.
- It shows how a bail hearing can be used by a court to secure the survivor’s welfare and her ability to testify.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Survivors and Families
- Any hospital, public or private, must give immediate first-aid or medical treatment free of cost to survivors of the specified offences.
- Interim compensation under the State scheme can be sought through the District Legal Services Authority.
- The DLSA can provide an advocate to protect the survivor’s rights during the trial.
For Counsel and Authorities
- Cite Section 397 BNSS and this order where a hospital refuses or charges for treatment.
- Track interim compensation and report delays to the court; the Court called such delay second victimisation.
- Health departments should circulate compliance directions to all hospitals and diagnostic centres.
Key Takeaways
- Bail was refused at present while the survivor remains unable to depose.
- All hospitals must give free immediate treatment under Section 397 BNSS.
- Delay in compensation or treatment is second victimisation.
- DLSA must ensure interim compensation and provide the survivor an advocate.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 397 BNSS require?
As reproduced in the order, it requires all hospitals, public or private, to provide immediate first-aid or medical treatment free of cost to victims of specified offences, including those under Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 of the BNS and certain POCSO offences, and to inform the police immediately.
Did the High Court grant bail?
No. It held that no case for bail was made out at present and rejected the applicant’s fourth bail application.
What did the Court direct the State to do?
It directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical Education, to ensure Section 397 compliance in all government and private hospitals and diagnostic centres in the State and to issue directions to District Magistrates, Chief Medical and Health Officers and private hospitals.
Conclusion
The order turns a routine bail hearing into an enforcement moment for survivors’ rights. By naming delay as second victimisation and directing State-wide compliance, the Court has made clear that the duties under Section 397 BNSS are mandatory.
Practical takeaway: Lawyers acting for survivors should insist on free treatment under Section 397 BNSS, apply early for interim compensation through the DLSA, and bring any non-compliance to the trial or High Court’s notice.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com