Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir

Estimated Reading Time: 15 minutes


Custodial Violation includes unlawful detention, illegal arrests, custodial deaths, and torture. The detainee can institute the destruction arising from false arrests, such as loss of salary while imprisoned or injury to influence that ensures an economic loss to the victim. 

During an illegal detention malafide intention is very necessary because if one has a reasonable excuse to arrest you but later it turns out be that the reason for the arrest was not reasonable then the question of intention comes into picture. 

Within the circumstances of false imprisonment, confinement happens when an individual is in moderation from going from a location or bounded areas due to an intentional wrongful act, such as the importance of strength, warning, coercion, or abuse of authority. Any individual against whom no charge of fraud might be imprisoned or confined under the legislation for specific objectives like expulsion in prudent custody from one area to another, such as removing a small girl from a brothel. In our country, illegal detention is not new and is very common as politics and influential people can easily manipulate the law and order situation.

This detention can be of two types:

  1. Detention made in pursuance of the warrant to be divulged by the magistrate.
  2. Detention made without any such a warrant but created in an accident with some legitimate acts authorising such detention.

A police officer, magistrate or any other private individual can quickly detain anyone.

The Sec. 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [1] ensures the procedure in which detentions are to be done, be it with or without a warrant. In an arrest, the police officer or any other individual while doing the same touches or restricts the individual’s body to be detained unless there is compliance to detention by phrases or any activity. However, special provisions are made for the arrest of a female as there is a requirement of a female constable always, and her arrest has to be done after sunrise and before sunset.

This concept of illegal detention has made people lose their faith in the police. Sometimes criminals do illegal detention for their aim of either having the money or any other motive.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [2], Bhim Singh was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir and was charged and retained in police custody and was intentionally avoided from going in the sitting of the legislative assembly to be held on September 11, 1985. 

He was detained in the middle of the night between 9th and 10th September 1985 by the Quiz Kunda police station from the station house officer, on the declaration that a trial against him under Section 153A of the Ranbir Penal Code[3] was expressed for providing a provocative speech at the general meeting which was held near Parade ground, Jammu on September 8 1985. The detainee was not even given any chance to defend himself from this accusation placed against him.

He was held by the police but was not produced before any magistrate till at least 72 years. There was also a voting session at the committee, which he seemingly lost, where his vote was significant, but the individual to whom he preferred to cast the vote won but his right to vote was also intrigued. A petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court about his illegal detention and his freedom of movement.


The issue raised in the following case was whether the detention was illegal or not and whether this detention is qualified as false imprisonment or not??

Arguments from the side of the Petitioner

The competent attorney from the Petitioner’s side rejected the other party’s contention that he was produced in the Court or the office in the magistrate’s presence on September, 11th 1985. 

The Petitioner has further rejected being put forward in front of the Sub-Magistrate on September 13, 1985, and straightaway refused to be analysed by any physician for the objective of collecting a Medical Certificate that was utilised for collecting for one day from the Sub-Magistrate.

On September 13, 1985, we authorised notices to be handed out to the respondents, and we also supervised the Inspector General of Police to notify Smt. Jayamala, where Shri Bhim Singh was kept in detention.  The Petitioner also acknowledged that on the 14th of September 1985, he was produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Jammu and was given an order of detaining for two days in judicial custody. He also ratifies that subsequently, on September 16, 1985, he was brought in front of the Additional Session- magistrate and was permitted bail by the Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner also submitted that he was subjected to have gone through mental torture and harassment by the police during the custody of his client.

The two decrees of detaining told to have been said by the Executive Magistrate First Class and Sub-Magistrate on 11th and September 13, 1985, subsequently do not comprise any affidavit that Shri Bhim Singh was developed either before the Executive Magistrate First Class or before the Sub-Magistrate.

Also Read  Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India

Arguments from the side of Respondent 

The Respondent was from the side of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Inspector-General of Police from Shri M.M. Khajuria and Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A.Mir asserted that on September 10 1985, the Police Control Room delivered a notice to the Superintendent of Police to detain Bhim Singh and also after detention, the Petitioner was brought to the District Headquarters as informed and given good establishments of water, food and rest.

They asserted that the Petitioner was carried to Pacca Danga Police Station at 9:30 pm. Officers were settled in the area to raise awareness to whether the Petitioner had drifted safely through the Udhampur region. They also asserted that on September 11 1985, the Executive Magistrate First Class ratified to detain to maintain the Petitioner under police custody for two days and on expiry of the remand collected for two days, further arrested for one day from Sub-Magistrate with the reason that Bhim Singh was sick was obtained on September 13 1985. The medical certificate has been attached herewith.

After the second detainee’s expiry date, the Petitioner was brought before the Sub-Magistrate on September 14 1985, and 2 days of lawful custody was received. After that, again, on September 16 1985, the Petitioner was sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, where his bail was awarded.

Summary of Judgement

The Supreme Court had heard contentions from both the parties, i.e. from Bhim Singh (the Petitioner) side and the State’s end (the Respondent). Therefore, when we look into the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined that the law enforcement officials acted in a very most irregular manner and sanctioned that if the non-public liberty of a member of the legislature is to be played within this fashion, one can only admire what may arise to secondary mortals. Further, remember the responsibilities of police officers who are the guardians of law and order should have the enormous passion or personal independence of citizens and should not wander the rules by avoiding such weird ordinances of corruption. We do not have a little suspicion that the obligation tells an untruth elsewhere and with the higher levels of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. For such an entire violation of his constitutional rights, the Petitioner was rewarded with monetary reimbursement using exemplary expenses.  The Court of law took the reference of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr.[4] In Sebastian Hongray v. UOI [5], it was characterised that in such cases of infringement of the individual’s fundamental rights, it is essential to reimburse the sufferer utilising illustrative expenses. The Respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, was decreed to refund to petitioner 50000 rupees within two months from the judgement date. The abundance was to be inserted with the Registrar of the Court, which would then be compensated to the Petitioner. The civil liberties or a custodian of the management of law and order should not be ravaged or snatched away at any cost. They are of fundamental importance for the Court. Justice Chinnappa Reddy and Justice Khalid followed the Supreme Court’s judgement in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases. They expressed the view that when a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous and malicious intent and that his Constitutional and legal rights were seized, the misconduct or malice and invasion may not be rinsed away or whisked-away by his entity being set free.

In the ordinary lawsuits of the principle of injuria sine damno, where the complainant had undergone no damage, the unlawful rule is useful; typically, nominal injuries are rewarded. If, however, the Court realises that the infringement of a legal right is unsettled to a mischievous and hostile act, as had happened in this case, the Court may grant exemplary damages. By ordering the State to pay compensation to the Petitioner, we see wasting the original doctrine of sovereign immunity. We see changing the conception of the State. By earning the State pay compensation, the Supreme Court ascertained the following principle: the State and the citizen preparation are on the same juristic plane. This assumption of reimbursement, which would refer to the remediation of a private wrong like trespass or negligence, would also apply to a public evil. The Court has recognised that the State is the social obligation phenomenon, which directs to the achievement of some governance tool.


The tort of false imprisonment is one of the highest forms of human rights violations. The Indian socio-political legitimate procedure is established on non-violence, common appreciation and human confidence of the individual. According to Article 21[6] of the Indian Constitution, every individual has the right to live with dignity and have free and fair detention by the police. The criminals also have human rights because prison anguish is the last thing they would ever deserve. Article 20[7] contains specific ratification clauses which enforce the identical and strives to maintain criminals from being held down due to ex-post, i.e. double jeopardy and self-incrimination facto statutes. Every individual has a right to personal liberty, freedom and life with absolute respect according to Part III of the Indian Constitution. This right cannot be taken away even during an emergency, and false imprisonment comes under this category. Such un-selective conduct of an individual other outcome sees the infringement of fundamental rights revered under Article 21. The evidence that a criminal is incarcerated and attends a sentence does not give the jail authorities any liberty to distress or torment him unnecessarily. It is a false idea that the prisoner’s commitment to unbearable hardship is removed.

Also Read  Nittin Johari v/s Serious Fraud Investigation Office

The term of imprisonment is a definitive and crucial aspect for deliberation to evaluate and grant damages. And while rewarding damages for false imprisonment, physical or mental injury has to be kept in mind.

The mere instance that the individual has been detained raises an insignificant claim of compensatory damages. If any police officer or government officer unlawfully detains the person, then he or any person on his behalf can file for the writ of habeas corpus. The writ ensures the freedom of the person who is imprisoned. The person who is about to be falsely arrested or detained can also use reasonable force to prevent false arrest. He can use power for self-defence but has to make sure that amount of pressure used is appropriate according to the circumstances. 

In the following case also Bheem Singh was falsely detained by the police authorities of the State of J and K. He was never presented before the Court of law till 72 hours. Only after the file of the writ of Habeas Corpus by his wife, he got introduced in the Court. He was further held free from the Court of law. This writ of Habeas Corpus showed that the State could not use its influential power to manipulate the Court of law as protecting the citizen’s fundamental rights is the most important principle of the Court of law.


Civil and economic justice is an impressive piece of the Indian Constitution. It guarantees fundamental rights which should get protection from the Constitution. The wrong of false detention is one of the vastly severe aspects of human rights infringements. This lawsuit brings forward the police force’s several criminal confinements as well as the harassment and torture the police conduct inside the jail. Barely because an individual has contended for a wrong, it does not suggest that the individual’s fundamental rights should get expelled, and his right to live with dignity should be detained. When these rights are violated, then there are remedies available that are enforceable in the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court. These rights are broken by the State, although in some circumstances may be involved.

The Constitution has safeguarded individuals’ freedom to personal liberty, independence, and life with importance under Articles 20 and 21(1) and under Part III of the Constitution, which cannot be repealed even during false emergency imprisonment is unsuitable of the same. According to the law, when the convict is sentence and imprisonment, the jail authorities or the police do not have any right to torture or harass the accused individual unnecessarily. An individual also has a right to file a writ petition of Habeas Corpus against the police or the government officer who has detained that individual based upon substantial evidence or has illegally detained him for any other reason. 

With the writ of Habeas Corpus, all individuals who are confined illegally shall be presented in the Court. It ensures liberty to that individual; if an individual has a valid reason to believe that he is being arrested illegally and for wrong motives, that individual can use a reasonable amount of force to stop it. 

Through the case of D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal[8], the Court also held that guidelines to the liberties of someone arrested were to be brought up. The detainee cannot be detained for more than 24 hours; the arrest authority is required to be presented before the Court without any fear before the Magistrate Court. Through courts’ numerous judgement suits in India, it may be declared that this nightmare of human liberties and enthusiasts is now a state’s responsibility. The privileges have been comprehended to infer a contract between the State and the citizens, a breach of which may be retrograde monetarily if the arresting council does not pursue this regulation. The detention will be deemed to be illegal.

The right to be developed before a Magistrate without delay- The CrPC under Sections 56[9] and 76 [10] authorises that the person arrested shall be delivered before the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction in the case without the unfair wait.

[1] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 46.

[2] Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494.

[3] The Ranbir Penal Code, s. 153A.

[4] Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr., 1983 AIR 1086.

[5] Sebastian Hongray v. UOI , 1984 AIR 1026.

[6] The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 21.

[7]  The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 20.

[8] D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition (CRL) NO. 592 Of 1987.

[9] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 56.

[10] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 76.