Case Analysis : Bhim Singh v.

State of Jammu and Kashmir | Lawsisto Legal News 09/03/22, 1:55 AM

Case Analysis : Bhim Singh V. State

Of Jammu And Kashmir

Citation: AIR 1986 SC 494

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: O. Chinnappa Reddy and V. Khalid

Date Decided: 22 November 1985

Appellant: Bhim Singh

Respondent: State of Jammu and Kashmir

Facts

The petitioner a member of legislative assemble from the state of

Jammu and Kashmir was arrested and detained in police custody and
was deliberately prevented from attending the parliament sessions

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTEwMw==/Case-Analysis-Bhim-Singh-v-State-of-Jammu-and-Kashmir Page 1 of 4
Case Analysis : Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir | Lawsisto Legal News 09/03/22, 1:55 AM

to be held on September 11th, 1985. He was arrested t on the

allegation that a case under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code was
registered against him for delivering a malicious/seditious speech at
the public gathering near the parade ground in Jammu on 8th
September 1985. He was not produced before any magistrate until
the 13th of September. There was also a voting session at the
assembly which he apparently missed, where his vote was very
crucial but the person to whom he wanted to cast the vote won but
his right to vote was infringed.

Issues

The legality of detention and whether it qualified as false

imprisonment was in question.

Arguments Advanced from the Parties

Petitioner:

The learned counsel from the side of the petitioner openly denied the
other parties argument that he was produced in front of the
magistrate on September,11th 1985 and in front of the Sub Judge on
13thof September 1985 and even to be examined by any doctor to
obtain a Medical Certificate that was used for obtaining a remand for
1 day from the Sub Judge. They accept that 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 during police custody his client had
been harassed by the detained police.

Respondent:

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTEwMw==/Case-Analysis-Bhim-Singh-v-State-of-Jammu-and-Kashmir Page 2 of 4
Case Analysis : Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir | Lawsisto Legal News 09/03/22, 1:55 AM

Inspector-General of Police, Shri M.M. Khajuria and Superintendent

of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A.Mir contended that on 10th of
September, 1985, the Police Control Room sent a notice to them
asking the petitioner to be arrested and also after the arrest, the
petitioner was brought to the District Headquarters as instructed and
given necessities. Officers were only asked to pay attention to
whether the petitioner had travelled safely through the Udhampur
region they further added that on 11th of September, 1985, the
petitioner was produced before the court and the Executive
Magistrate First Class signed to keep the petitioner under police
custody for a period of 2 days and on expiry of the remand extended
it for two more days, further remand for one day from Sub-Judge
with the reason that the petitioner was medically ill was obtained on
13th of September. After the expiry of the second remand, the
petitioner was again produced before the Sub Judge on 14
September and 2 more days of judicial custody was granted by the
judge.

Judgment
After hearing the arguments from both the parties and considering
the facts of the case the honorable Supreme court Court observed
that the law enforcement officials acted in a very most arbitrary way
and ruled “if the non-public liberty of a member of the legislature is
to be played within this fashion one can only wonder what may
happen to lesser mortals”. Moving forward the apex court reminded
the duties of “police officials who are the custodians of law and
order within the state 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 mustn't become
depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to safeguard and to
abduct.” Chinnappa Reddy J. and Khalid J. followed the choice of

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTEwMw==/Case-Analysis-Bhim-Singh-v-State-of-Jammu-and-Kashmir Page 3 of 4
Case Analysis : Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir | Lawsisto Legal News 09/03/22, 1:55 AM

Supreme Court in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases and

expressed the view that when someone involves us with the
complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with
mischievous and malicious intent which his Constitutional and legal
rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and invasion might not be
washed away or whisked-away by his being unfettered. The
petitioner for such gross violation of his fundamental rights granted
to him by the constitution of the country was awarded monetary
compensation by way of exemplary costs. within the cases of ‘ Rudul
Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr.’ and within the case of ‘ Sebastian
Hongray v. UOI, it absolutely was noticed that just in case of such
violation of the basic rights provided by the
Constitution, it's necessary to compensate the victim by way of
exemplary costs. The respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir
was ordered to pay to the petitioner five thousand rupees within 2
months from the date of the judgment. the number was to be
deposited with the Registrar of the Court which might then be paid to
the petitioner

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTEwMw==/Case-Analysis-Bhim-Singh-v-State-of-Jammu-and-Kashmir Page 4 of 4