This Case Summary on Bhim Singh V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1985; is submitted by Ananya Suri. She is pursuing Law from Amity Law school, Amity university, Noida; and is Content Writer & Legal Researcher at Legal Thirst.
DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 1985
PETITONER: MLA OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
JUDGES: O.C. REDDY, V. KHALID
CITATION: AIR 1986 SC 494, 1986 CriLJ 192, 1985 (2) SCALE 1117, (1985) 4 SCC 677, 1986 (1) UJ 458 SC
Table of Contents
Background of the Case: Bhim Singh V. State of Jammu & Kashmir
In the Case titled Bhim Singh V. State of Jammu & Kashmir; the Bhim Singh is an Indian politician, lawyer, and a renowned author. He was an MLA in Jammu and Kashmir National Panther Party. In 2002, the elections which were held at Jammu and Kashmir were won by his own party.
- Mr. Bhim Singh an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir was arrested and detained in police custody; and was deliberately prevented from attending the sessions of the legislature to be held on 11th September 1985.
- He was arrested on an intervening night between 9th and 10th September 1985; by the police headquarters officer of Quiz Kunda police station; on the allegation that a case under Section 153 A of Ranbir Legal Code was registered against him for delivering an inflammatory/seditious speech at the general public meeting held near tract, Jammu on 8th September 1985.
- He has not produced before the Magistrate till 13th September. There was also a voting session at the assembly and he wasn’t ready to vote; as he wasn’t allowed to travel; where his vote was very crucial but the person to whom he wanted to offer the vote won; but his right to vote was infringed.
- On the inquiry of the Supreme Court, it had been found that Mr. Bhim Singh was illegally detained by the police personnel; aided either by collusion or by an off-the-cuff attitude with the Magistrate; who ordered for remand without production of the arrested person before him.
- The Court acknowledged that the Magistrate acted with none sense of responsibility; or genuine concern for the private liberty and therefore the police arrested the imprisoned with mischievous and malicious intent.
- It had been certainly was a gross violation of the constitutional right of the accused person under Article 21 and 22(2).
Whether the detention was illegal and qualified as false imprisonment?
The Court observed that the cops acted during a most high-handed way; and opined “if the private liberty of a member of the legislature is to be played within this fashion one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals”.
Further, reminded the duties of “police officers; who are the custodians of law and order should have the best respect for private liberty of citizens; and will not float the laws by stopping to such weird acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order shouldn’t become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and to abduct.”
The petitioner for such gross violation of his constitutional rights was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs. In the cases of ‘Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr.’ and within the case of ‘Sebastian Hongray v. UOI’ it had been acknowledged that just in case of such violation of the elemental rights provided by the Constitution; it’s necessary to compensate the victim by way of exemplary costs.
The respondent, State of Jammu and Kashmir was ordered to pay to the petitioner 5000 rupees within 2 months from the date of the judgement. The amount was to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court which might then be paid to the petitioner.
The counsel from the petitioner side denied the other party’s argument that was produced in front of the magistrate. On the 14thof September 1985 his client was produced before the Sub Judge, Jammu, and remanded for 2 days of judicial custody. They also accept that thereafter on the 16th of September, his client was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge and was granted bail.
They further also argued that in police custody his client had been harassed by the detained police.
on 10th of September 1985, the Police Control Room sent a notice to them asking the petitioner to be arrested. Officers paid attention that the petitioner travelled safely through the region; also mentioning that on 11 September 1985, the petitioner was produced in front of the court and executive magistrate first class. After the expiry of the second remand, the petitioner was again produced before the Sub Judge on 14 September; and a couple of more days of judicial custody was granted by the Judge.
The tort of imprisonment is one among the foremost severe sorts of human rights violations. This case brings forward the varied illegal detentions by the police. Just because an individual has been alleged of a wrong, it doesn’t mean that the person loses all his fundamental rights. Even the prisoners have human rights the proper of an individual to non-public liberty, freedom; and life with dignity has been guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 20 and 21 can’t be abrogated even during an emergency; and imprisonment is incongruous of an equivalent.
The fact that a convict is imprisoned and has got to serve a sentence; doesn’t give the jail authorities any right to torment or torture him unnecessarily. If the person is unlawfully confined by any policeman or government officer; then he or a person on his behalf can file for the writ of habeas corpus. The writ ensures the freedom of the one that is confined. The one that is close to be falsely arrested or imprisoned also can use reasonable force so as to stop false arrest. He can use force for self-defence but has got to confirm that the force used is cheap consistent with the circumstances.
Disclaimer: The opinions and views in the articles and research papers published on this website; are personal and independent opinions of the author. The website is not responsible for them.
Legal Thirst has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
You can click on this link and join:
Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.