Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 68 docs - [View All]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
Poonam Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 September, 2002
Baddam Satyanarayana Reddy vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 25 November, 2004
Santosh Kumari vs State Of H.P. And Ors. on 31 October, 2007
Burhanuddin Tahevali ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 November, 1993

User Queries

Winner of the Agami Prize 2018 for democratising access to law.

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India
Bhim Singh vs State Of J&K on 31 August, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1984 (2) SCALE 370, 1984 Supp (1) SCC 504
Bench: D Desai, R Misra


1. Mr. E.C. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir has placed on record a copy of the teleprinter message from the concerned authority dated August 30, 1984 informing him that Mr. Bhim Singh the detenu, whose detention has been challenged in this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been released on August 24, 1984. This teleprinter message is followed by a letter confirming the same. Mr. E.C. Agarwal, learned Counsel has authenticated the letter as well as the teleprinter message, and placed them on record.

2. Mrs. Jayamala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and a member of the working committee of J. and K. Panthars Party has filed this writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus questioning the validity of the detention of Bhim Singh, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir State. When the letter and teleprinter message were shown to Mrs. Jayamala, she said that Mr. Bhim Singh has not been released because she had contacted all the possible sources enquiring about the release of the petitioner, but he could not be contacted and therefore there is reason to believe that the statement made by Mr. Agarwal is not correct. We are not persuaded to accept this submission because it is difficult to believe that the State would make through its learned Counsel a wholly false statement in respect of a detenu.

3. The petitioner is at liberty to take other steps if the petitioner is not released as stated by the learned Counsel.

4. This petition has become infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly.