Judgment G.S.Chaube, J. 1. The sole petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order dated 25-11-1998 of the First Assistant Sessions Judge of Giridih made in Sessions Trial No.135 of 1998 declining to discharge him under Section 227 of. the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that being a person of unsound mind, he was uncapable of committing any crime as provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short facts of the case are that in the night between 9-12-1997 and 10-12-1997 the officer incharge of Taratand Police Outpost within Ahilyapur Police Station in the district of Giridih arrested the petitioner under Section 42 read with Section 409, Cr PC. He brought the petitioner to the outpost and started interrogating him. At about 1.00 a.m., he felt call of the nature. Therefore, leaving the petitioner inside the outpost with a constable to watch him, he went out. In the meantime, the petitioner picked up the service revolve of the said officer-incharge which had been left on the table, and fired at the constable causing gun-shot injury to him. On the alarm raised by the constable, the officer incharge of the outpost and some others arrived. There was an attempt to persuade and disarm the petitioner, but the petitioner went on shooting from the fire-arm causing injuries to some others. Ultimately, he was overpowered when shot at causing injuries to his lower limbs. Inside the outpost, the petitioner was found using yet another country-made pistol which had been kept in safe custody. He was also found burning and thereby destroying currency note worth Rs.16,600/- which had been kept by the officer in charge concerned and the constable in their respective boxes the locks of which the petitioner. had opened by using keys thereof which were easily available inside the outpost. Consequently, the officer incharge of the Taratand outpost submitted a written information report to the officer incharge of Ahilyapur P.S. disclosing commission of offences under Sections 224/324/307/ 353/332/333/427/379 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Investigation followed and on completion thereof, charge-sheet showing commission of the said offences was submitted and cognizance taken. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session and made over to the first Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. 3. Investigation followed and on completion thereof, charge-sheet showing commission of the said offences was submitted and cognizance taken. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session and made over to the first Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. 3. That being injured before he was overpowered, the petitioner was sent to a hospital at Giridih; from there he was sent to RMCH, Ranchi for treatment, while in judicial custody. He was suspected to be of unsound mind. Therefore, he was sent to Ranchi Institute of Neuropsychiatry and Allied Sciances (RINPAS) at Ranchi. There he was treated for schizophrenia. After being cured of his mental illness the petitioner was transferred to judicial custody and when it came for framing of charge(s) to commence trial, a bid was made by, and on behalf of the petitioner to secure his discharge in accordance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the first Asstt. Sessions Judge, Giridih, declined to discharge the petitioner on the ground that there was sufficient material for presuming that he committed offences under Sections 224/324/307/353/323/ 333/427/379 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this application. 4. Mr. M. K. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the conduct of the petitioner at the time of the alleged occurance disclosed that, in all probability, he was suffering from some mental disease, he was protected by Section 84, IPC. Therefore, it was a fit case for discharge of the accused person under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. As usual, no body is present on behalf of the State to refute the contention. However, on going through the impugned order and the lower Court record, I find that there was little scope for the First Assistant Sessions Judge of Giridih for discharging the petitioner who was accused before him. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was apprehended by the officer incharge of Taratand outpost suspecting that he was likely to commit some cognizable offence and was brought to the outpost for interrogation. The petitioner picked up the service revolver of the officer and shot at the constable who was keeping watch on him. He also fired some shots causing gunshot injuries to some others, and was, ultimately, overpowered by causing gunshot injury to him. The petitioner picked up the service revolver of the officer and shot at the constable who was keeping watch on him. He also fired some shots causing gunshot injuries to some others, and was, ultimately, overpowered by causing gunshot injury to him. It is said that whatever he did was with a view to esape from the police custody. The petitioner was also found to have destroyed currency notes worth several thousands which had been kept inside by the occupants of the outpost. Therefore, on the facts stated and materials collected in support thereof, one can safely presume that the petitioner committed offences with which he had been charged. Section 84, IPC lays a down that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind is uncapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the facts and circumstances attending the occurrence clearly show that the petitioner was of mind at the particular time and this fact was further supported by the medical evidence. On this ground it has been submitted that since the petitioner was incapable of committing the crime due to unsoundness of his mind, he cannot be proceeded against for committing the crime alleged. However, crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind so as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84, IPC can only be established from the circumstances which proceeded, attended and followed the crime. In other words, unless it is established by evidence that, in fact, an accused charged with crime was suffering from any mental disease, be cannot expect his discharge. It is settled that to establish that an act is not an offence under Section 84, IPC it must be proved that at the time of the commission of the act, the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of either knowing the nature of the not or that the act was either wrong or contrary to law. Law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be unless contrary is proved. Law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be unless contrary is proved. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be most dangerous to admit the plea of insanity at the stage of framing charge upon arguments, derived merely from the conduct of the accused attending the crime or subsequent thereto, because the possibility of the crime having been committed during lucid interval cannot be ruled out. Therefore, simply because at the subsequent stage the petitioner was found to be suffering from schizophrenia and was treated for the same, he was not entitled to be discharged. Only if in course of trial, it is found that at the time of commission of the offence, he was suffering from unsoundness of mind. He may plead for his acquittal taking refuge to the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the result, thin application falls and is hereby dismissed.