Release of lunatic pending investingaion or trial
CRPC 330 (Release of lunatic pending investingaion or trial) corresponds most closely to BNSS 369, Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial, on a text comparison scoring 54 per cent. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 330 Release of lunatic pending investingaion or trial
(1) Whenever a person is found, under section 328 or section 329, to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, may release him on sufficient security being given that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf.
(2) If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the State Government :
Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912).
In force · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Section 369 Release of person of unsound mind pending investigation or trial
(1) Whenever a person if found under section 367 or section 368 to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, order release of such person on bail:
Provided that the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability which does not mandate in-patient treatment and a friend or relative undertakes to obtain regular out-patient psychiatric treatment from the nearest medical facility and to prevent from doing injury to himself or to any other person.
(2) If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, bail cannot be granted or if an appropriate undertaking is not given, he or it shall order the accused to be kept in such a place where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided, and shall report the action taken to the State Government:
Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a public mental health establishment shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (10 of 2017).
(3) Whenever a person is found under section 367 or section 368 to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall keeping in view the nature of the act committed and the extent of unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability, further determine if the release of the accused can be ordered:
Provided that---
(a) if on the basis of medical opinion or opinion of a specialist, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, decide to order discharge of the accused, as provided under section 367 or section 368, such release may be ordered, if sufficient security is given that the accused shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person;
(b) if the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, is of the opinion that discharge of the accused cannot be ordered, the transfer of the accused to a residential facility for persons with unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability may be ordered wherein the accused may be provided care and appropriate education and training.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.