LEGAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM 2021

Student’s name – Shaurya Pratap Singh

Enrol. No.- 20FLICDDN02165

Batch name & year – B.A. LL.B. (2020-25) &1st year

Case analysis – Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR

1986 SC 494

Submitted by – Submitted to -

Shaurya Pratap Singh Mr. Gyanendra Tripathi

Case name – Bhima Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation - AIR 1986 SC 494

Court name – Supreme Court of India

Bench - O. Chinnappa Reddy and V. Khalid

Petitioner - Bhim Singh

Defendant - State of Jammu and Kashmir

Fact of the case –

This case is all about false imprisonment, in which person is detained without
any lawful justification. It can be both civil and criminal wrong and it applies to
both private and government detention.

There was a man named Bhim Singh, who was a member of legislative
assembly (MLA) of Jammu & Kashmir. Bhim Singh was arrested by the police
in mid night between 9th to 10th September without any lawful justification thus
preventing him from attending the assembly session to be held on 11 th
September 1985. He was detained on the ground that a case was registered
against him under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code, for delivering an
inflammatory/seditious speech at the public meeting held near parade ground,
Jammu on 8th September 1985. He was not presented before any nearest
magistrate till 13th September. Because of detention he was not able to attend
the voting session of the assembly, where his vote was very crucial but the
person to whom he wanted to give the vote won but his right to vote was
infringed.

Issue involved –

The issue involved in this case is –

 Does arrest causes violation of constitutional right of the petitioner.

 Whether the arrest and the detention was illegal and will be qualified as
false imprisonment.

Petitioner’s contentions-

The Petitioner claimed that he was not produced in front of the Magistrate and
Sub - Judge (as contented by the respondents). He also stated that he was not
examined by a doctor and that the police treated him inhumanely. Furthermore,
there was a voting session going on at the assembly, but he was barred from
voting due to wrongful refrainment. His vote was critical; even though the
person he wanted to vote for won, his right to vote was violated.

Defendant’s contentions-

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

Anantnag, Shri M.A. Mir stated that on September 10, 1985, the police control
room sent them a notice requesting that the petitioner be arrested, and that
following the arrest, the petitioner was brought to 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 also added that on September 11th,
1985, the petitioner was produced before the court and the Executive Magistrate
First Class signed to keep petitioner under police custody for a period of two
days, and on the expiry of the remand, it was extended for two more days.

Court’s judgment-

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner Shri Bhim Singh, who was arrested
and detained by the police without any lawful justification was not produced
before any nearest magistrate after 24 hours of arrest. Thus, his right under
article 21 and 22 (2) of the Indian constitution was violated. The Supreme Court
inferred that Bhim Singh was expected to travel from Jammu to Srinagar on the
intervening night of September 9th-10th, 1985, because there was a meeting of
the Assembly on September 11th, 1985, and the police were given a notice to
arrest him if he was spotted en route to Srinagar and detain him to prevent him
from proceeding to Srinagar to attend the session of the Legislative Assembly.

The Court observed that the police officers acted in a most heinous manner,
opining that "if the personal liberty of a member of the legislative assembly is to
be played in this manner, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser
mortals." Furthermore, the duties of "police officers who are the custodians of
law and order should have the greatest respect for citizens' personal liberty and
should not float the laws by stopping such strange acts of lawlessness." Law
enforcement officers should not become violators of civil liberties. Their
mission is to both protect and abduct."

Because of his gross violation of article 21 and 22 (2) of the constitution, the
petitioner was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs.
Supreme court followed the decision in the decided case of Rudul Shah v. State
of Bihar and Anr. and Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India. It was pointed out
that if there is any constitutional right violation the victim must be compensated
by of exemplary costs. Thus Supreme Court directed State of Jammu &
Kashmir to pay Shri Bhim Singh, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from
the date of the judgment of the present day. 

Reason behind the decision-

The petitioner, Shri Bhim Singh, was denied his legal rights in the case of Shri
Bhim Singh v The State of Jammu & Kashmir. He was unlawfully arrested and
detained, preventing him from participating in the assembly session and thus
depriving him of his constitutional rights. This has also resulted in a flagrant
violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty, freedom, and a dignified
life guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner
also claims that he was not produced before a Magistrate within the required
time frame, in violation of Sections 56 and 76 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. He also claimed that he had been detained for more than 24
hours, infringing on his legal rights.

As a result, supreme court awardee him sum of 50,000/ rupee as a exemplary

costs.
An analysis-

The tort of false imprisonment is one of the most severe forms of human rights
violations. False imprisonment is composed of four ingredients which are:

–       Complete deprivation of personal liberty

–       Knowledge of restraint

–       Presence of bad intention

–       Unlawful act

This case brings forward the various illegal detentions by the police force. The
petitioner’s right under article 21 and 22 was violated which even in emergency
can’t be suspended and false imprisonment is out of place for the same.  If the
person is unlawfully confined by any police officer or government officer, then
he or any person on his behalf can file for the writ of habeas corpus. The writ
ensures the liberty of the person who is confined. The person who is about to be
falsely arrested or imprisoned can also use reasonable force in order to prevent
false arrest. 

And preventing member of legislative assembly from attending important

session of the assembly violated his constitutional right. If MLAs are not treated
with good behaviour so how police will treat common citizens gods knows!!
The petitioner’s right under section 56 and 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure
was violated. These rights says that the person arrested shall be produced before
the Magistrate or the court having jurisdiction in the case without unnecessary
delay. Shri Bhim Singh’s right of not being detained for more than 24 hours was
infringed, since he was not produced before any Magistrate within 24 hours,
excluding the time it took to travel from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s
Court. The police officers did not fulfil the requirement and hence, the arrest
was unlawful according to Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution. Articles 20
and 21 provide an individual with the right to personal liberty, freedom, and life
with dignity and that cannot be abolished even during an emergency
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution acknowledges the significance of human
rights and Article 20 with its sub-clauses re-enforces the equal and ambitions to
defend hold the proper of the convicts from being held down because of ex
submit facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination in Article 20(a), (b)
and (c ) respectively.