- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uday Chand And Others v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J&K And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition concerns four individuals—Uday Chand, Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Bansi Lal—who were previously granted bail by the Supreme Court on 2 March 1981. Despite that order, the State of Jammu & Kashmir later took some of them back into custody for offences allegedly committed before the bail order. The petition also raises allegations that the heads of two petitioners were forcibly shaved while in police custody, and that the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Jammu, made a contemptuous remark that “his arms were longer than those of the Supreme Court.” The present order addresses compliance with the earlier bail order, the legality of the subsequent arrests, and the allegations of custodial mistreatment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioners can lawfully remain at liberty pursuant to the Supreme Court’s bail order of 2 March 1981, or be re-arrested for pre-existing offences without prior notice to the Court.
- Whether the alleged forcible shaving of two petitioners’ heads in custody was authorised and lawful.
- Whether the conduct and statements attributed to the S.S.P., Jammu, constitute contempt of court or other misconduct.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that, according to the State’s counsel, all four petitioners had already been released on bail pursuant to its earlier order. It therefore held that they should not be in custody. With respect to Ashok Kumar, against whom an FIR under Section 307 of the Penal Code had been lodged, the Court allowed him to remain at liberty on condition that he appear before the concerned Magistrate on 16 March 1981; he was not to be arrested before that date except for any offence committed after the present order, and any such arrest must be promptly reported to the Court.
The Court expressed “amazement” that the State had re-arrested the petitioners for offences allegedly committed before 2 March 1981, without informing the Court. It characterised those arrests as “clearly contrary” to its earlier bail order and emphasised that the authorities owed a “bounden duty” and “elementary courtesy” to inform the Court before taking such action.
Regarding allegations of mistreatment, the Court directed the State to file, within one week, an affidavit explaining whether two petitioners’ heads had been shaved in custody, and if so, under what authority. It also ordered the S.S.P., Jammu, to file an affidavit within the same period responding to the allegation that he boasted that his “arms were longer than those of the Supreme Court.”
Finally, the Court reiterated that the petitioners “shall be treated as free citizens,” directed the State to furnish data on Ashok Kumar’s arrests, and listed the matter for further hearing on 24 March 1981.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The petitioners are confirmed to be at liberty under the Supreme Court’s bail order; any prior re-arrests are inconsistent with that order. Ashok Kumar is to remain free until 16 March 1981, subject to his appearance before the Magistrate. The State and the S.S.P., Jammu, must submit affidavits on the alleged custodial shaving and contemptuous remarks within one week.
IMPLICATIONS: The order immediately restores the petitioners’ freedom, compels transparency from State officials, and signals the Court’s intolerance of non-compliance with its bail directives. No new legal precedent is articulated, but the Court reinforces the principle that executive authorities must respect and promptly inform the Court when taking actions that could undermine its orders.
1. Mr Kacker, who appears on behalf of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, has made a statement before us that all the four persons namely, Uday Chand, Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Bansi Lal have already been released on bail in pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on March 2, 1981. If that be so, there is no question of the petitioners being in custody any longer. We direct that Ashok Kumar against whom an FIR under Section 307 of the Penal Code is alleged to have been lodged, shall present himself before the Magistrate concerned on the due date for his appearance viz. March 16, 1981. Until March 16, 1981, Ashok Kumar shall not be taken into custody except in respect of an offence committed by him hereafter. In the event it becomes imperative to arrest Ashok Kumar for any such alleged offence committed by him hereafter, the authorities concerned shall give intimation to this Court of such arrest promptly.
2. We direct that the State shall file, through an officer properly informed in that behalf, an affidavit in this Court within one week from today in regard to the allegations made by the petitioners that the heads of two of them were shaved off after they were taken into custody. If it be true that their heads were so shaved, the person responsible for passing the order in that behalf shall disclose the authority under which he acted.
3. We further direct that the S.S.P, Jammu, shall file an affidavit in this Court within one week from today in regard to the allegations made against him in para 9 of the petition to the effect that he said that “his arms were longer than those of the Supreme Court.
4. The petitioners being free citizens will be at liberty to leave the court room and it is needless to add that they shall not be taken in custody or be handcuffed.
5. Mr Kacker stated before us that the petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on March 2, 1981 but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to March 2, 1981. We are quite amazed at this statement and we should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of the petitioners for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this Court before taking these persons in custody, especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed the order of bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the petitioners. We regret that this elementary courtesy to this Court was not shown. We would like to reiterate that the petitioners shall be treated as free citizens inspite of the fact that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this Court.
6. We direct the State of Jammu & Kashmir to produce before us at the next hearing the necessary data regarding the arrest of Ashok Kumar for offences under the Penal Code.
7. The matter be listed for hearing on March 24, 1981.
Alert