A private individual, a police officer or any public authority can falsely imprison a person as well. For imprisonment it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement which is of relevance.

CASE NAME – Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494

NAME OF THE COURT – Supreme Court of India

CITATION – AIR 1986 SC 494

PETITIONER – Bhim Singh

RESPONDENT – State of Jammu and Kashmir

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 22 November, 1985

BENCH – O.C. Reddy, V. Khalid

FACTS

On an intervening night between 9th and 10th September 1985, Shri Bhim Singh, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kasmir, was arrested by the station house officer of Quiz Kunda police station, on the allegation that a case under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code was registered against him for delivering an inflammatory/seditious speech at the public meeting held near parade ground, Jammu on 8th September 1985. On 11^th September 1985, he was not allowed to go for a session at the session assembly. There was a voting session at the assembly and he was not able to vote as he was not allowed to go.  His vote was very crucial but the person to whom he wanted to give the vote won but his right to vote was infringed. Moreover, he was not presented before the magistrate of four days, i.e., until 14^th September 1985 and was kept in some hidden place.

His wife Smt. Jayamala, acting on his behalf, filed the present application for the issue of a writ to direct the respondents to produce Shri Bhim Singh before the Court, to declare his detention illegal and to set him at liberty. On 13^th September, 1985, we directed notice to be issued to the respondents and we also directed the Inspector General of Police to inform Smt. Jayamala where Shri Bhim Singh was kept in custody. Thereafter, on 16^th September, on hearing the petitioner, bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jammu.

Arguments advanced by the Petitioner

• Bhim Singh has denied that he was brought in front of the Magistrate on 11thof September, 1985. He further denied being brought in front of the Sub Judge on 13thof September, 1985 and even denied 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.
• The 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. He also contended that during police custody he has been further harassed by the police.

Arguments advanced by the Respondents

• Inspector General of Police, Shri M.M. Khajuria and Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A. Mird, contended that FIR was filed under Section 153A of the Ranbir Penal Code against Shri Bhim Singh on 9 September, 1985 at Police Station of Pacca Danga, Jammu. The complaint against him was that he had given a seditious speech publicly at a meeting in Jammu on 8^th September. Thereafter, Officer-in-charge of Pacca Danga Police Station gave notice to Superintendent of Police, Jammu who then forwarded the notice to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu. On 10^th September, 1985, the Police Control Room sent a notice to the Superintendent of Police to arrest Shri Bhim Singh.
• The respondents further contended that after petitioner brought to Pacca Danga Police Station at 9:30 pm, officers were put in place to pay attention to whether the petitioner had travelled safely through the Udhampur region. On 11^th September, 1985, the Executive Magistrate First Class signed a remand to keep the petitioner under police custody for a period of 2 days. On expiry of the remand obtained for two days, further remand for one day from Sub-Judge with reason 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 2 days judicial custody was obtained. Thereafter, again on 16^th September, 1985 the petitioner was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge where his bail was granted.

ISSUES

• Whether the detention was illegal.
• Whether the detention was qualified as false imprisonment.
• Whether the detention violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner.
• Whether the petitioner was liable for monetary compensation.

COURT’S DECISION

The Court decided police officers should not deprive citizens of their fundamental rights and civil liberties. The higher responsibility lies with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir of whom the police officers were mere puppets. He was deprived of article 21 of the Indian constitution and also many other fundamental rights were also deprived. For such a gross violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights, the petitioner was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs. In the cases of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr. and in the case of Sebastian Hongray v. UOI, it was pointed out that in case of such violation of the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution, it is necessary to compensate the victim by way of exemplary costs. The respondent, State of Jammu and Kashmir was ordered to pay to the petitioner 50000 rupees within 2 months from the date of the judgement. The amount was to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court which would then be paid to the petitioner.

CASE ANALYSIS

The tort of false imprisonment is one of the most severe forms of human rights violations. False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person’s permission. The four ingredients of false imprisonment are (1) complete deprivation of personal liberty, (2) knowledge of restraint (it is not necessary that the plaintiff should have the knowledge of the detention), (3) presence of bad intention, and (4) unlawful act. As stated above, this case covers all these ingredients. This case, even, brings forward the various illegal detentions by the police force.

These fundamental rights are provided in the Constitution which were grossly violated in the given case.

Right to be produced before a Magistrate without delay- The CrPC under Sections 56 and 76 mandates that the person arrested shall be produced before the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction in the case without unnecessary delay.

Right of not being detained for more than 24 hours- This provides that the arresting authority is required to produce the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the Magistrate and in no case such delay shall be more than 24 hours. However, the stipulated period of 24 hours excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to Magistrate’s Court. If this requirement is not followed by the arresting authority, then the arrest will be deemed to be unlawful.

Just because a person has been alleged of a wrong, it does not mean that the person loses all his fundamental rights. Even the prisoners have human rights. The right of a person to personal liberty, freedom, and life with dignity has been guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 20 and 21(2) cannot be abrogated even during an emergency, and false imprisonment is incongruous of the same. The fact that a convict is imprisoned and has 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 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. He can use force for self-defense but has to make sure that the force used is reasonable according to the circumstances.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.