Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [AIR 1986 SC 494]

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [AIR 1986 SC 494]

By Charisma & Nimisha (Team LL.B Mania)


Bhim Singh was an MLA in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. He was arrested and detained by the police officers in between 9 and 10th of the September in 1985. He was also not allowed to attend the assembly on the 11, and there was important voting supposed to happen. The person to whom he wanted to vote was in the majority but he was refrained from attending the Legislative Assembly that day and o the same day there were budget discussions which were going to take place and also his voting right was infringed.

He was arrested under Section 153A of IPC which states that he has given an inflammatory and seditious speech.

In the SC inquiry, it was understood that he was illegally detained by the police officers with malicious intent. The court also pointed out that the Magistrate was very irresponsible in this case and this also led to the violation of constitutional rights of Mr Bhim Singh under Article 21 and 22(2).


Whether the detention was illegal and qualified as false imprisonment?

Arguments Advanced from the side of Petitioner

Petitioner has denied that he was brought in front of the Magistrate on 11thof September, 1985.

Petitioner has further denied being brought in front of the Sub Judge on 13thof September, 1985 and even denies to be examined by any doctor for the purpose of obtaining a Medical Certificate that was used for obtaining a remand for 1 day from the Sub Judge.

Petitioner accepts that on 14thof September, 1985 he was produced before the Sub Judge, Jammu and remanded for 2 days in judicial custody. He also accepts that thereafter on 16th of September, 1985 he was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge and was granted bail.

Petitioner has also contended that during police custody he has been further harassed by the police.

Arguments advanced from the side of Respondent

Inspector General of Police, Shri M.M. Khajuria and Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A.Mir contended that on 10 September, 1985, the Police Control Room sent a notice to the Superintendent of Police to arrest Bhim Singh and also after arrest, the petitioner was delivered to the District Headquarters as instructed and given proper facilities of water, food and rest. They stated that the petitioner was delivered to Pacca Danga police station at 9:30 pm. Officers were put in site to concentrate as to if the petitioner had travelled safely through the Udhampur region they also contended that on 11 September, 1985, the chief Magistrate First Class signed a remand to keep the petitioner under police custody for a period of 2 days and on expiry of the remand obtained for two days , further remand for at some point from Sub-Judge justifiably that Bhim Singh was sick ( Medical Certificate attached ) was obtained on 13 September, 1985. After the expiry of the second remand, the petitioner was produced before the Sub Judge on 14 September, 1985 and a couple of days judicial custody was obtained. Thereafter, again on 16 September, 1985 the petitioner was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge where his bail was granted.


The Supreme Court said that in this case, the police officers who have arrested Mr Bhim Singh have acted in a very careless way of infringing a personโ€™s constitutional and human rights. It also stated that every person has their own human rights even if he is arrested or detained by the police and violating the liberty of a person is definitely not acceptable. In cases like this where the petitioner was illegally detained and there was also a gross violation of his/her human rights and constitutional rights the mere setting, the petitioner free would not be enough but there should be compensation paid to them as well. For this decision, the SC mentioned about two cases namely, Rudul Shah case[1] and Sebastian Hongray case[2]. The State of J&K was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the petitioner which were first to be deposited with the registrar and then they would be further given to the petitioner.

[1] Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr.

[2] Sebastian Hongray v. UOI.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *