Bhim Singh v. Union Of India And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Record of Proceedings),Writ Petitions (Crl.) No. 310 of 2005 with No. 15 of 2007, decided on November 10, 2008

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Petitioner-in-person, P.V Yogeswaran, Dr Beem Pratap Singh, B.S Billowaria and Manjur Alam, Advocates, for the Petitioner [In WP (Crl.) No. 310 of 2005];
Anil Kr. Mittal (Amicus Curiae), Advocate, for the Petitioner [In WP (Crl.) No. 15 of 2007];
Gopal Subramanium, Additional Solicitor General, Ms Jayshree Anand, Additional Advocate General, S.G Hasnain, Senior Advocate [K.K Mahalik, Kuldip Singh (for Arun Kr. Sinha), Anil K. Jha, Devansh A. Mohta, Ms Binu Tamta, S.N Terdol, Ms Sushma Suri, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms Anil Katiyar, S.N Terdal, Vikas Sharma, D.S Mahra, Anis Suhrawardy, Ms Shamama Anis, Mehdi Imam, Tabrez, Pramod Swarup, Ms Pareena Swarup, Harvendra Singh, Praveen Swarup, Ankur Mittal, Javed Mahmud Rao, Shahid Ali Rao, Sandeep Singh, Ratan Kr. Choudhuri, Binod K. Upadhyay, S.N Pandey, C.P Pandey and Ashwani Garg, Advocates] for the Respondents.

Judges

Justice B.N. Agrawal
Justice G.S. Singhvi

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The order arises in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 310 of 2005. The petitioner appeared in person. The Union of India was represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Gopal Subramanium, and the State of Jammu & Kashmir was represented by counsel.

An earlier order dated 8-12-2007 had directed certain measures. Owing to a “changed situation,” the Supreme Court now modifies that earlier order. The modification primarily concerns the transfer of 25 criminal cases that were pending before various courts in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to courts located in Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Court also issues ancillary directions about expediting trials, transmitting records, and seeking explanations for prolonged investigative delay in a number of other matters.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the pending criminal trials listed in the order should be transferred from courts in Jammu & Kashmir to courts outside the State to facilitate their expeditious disposal.
Whether prosecutions where charge-sheets have not been filed for an inordinately long period—despite FIRs having been registered years earlier—should be quashed.
Whether the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India should take steps to deport certain accused who have already been acquitted or whose deportation had been recommended.
Whether the investigating authorities should show cause for the prolonged pendency of investigations in specific cases.

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 notes a “changed situation” that necessitates revisiting its earlier directions issued on 8-12-2007. It therefore:

Lists 25 individual criminal matters, identifies the courts in Jammu & Kashmir where they are pending, the prisons where the under-trial prisoners are lodged, and the specific courts outside the State to which each case is transferred.
Directs that, upon transfer, the matters be tried either by the transferee Sessions Judge or by any other court of competent jurisdiction to which the Sessions Judge may make them over.
Imposes a strict timeline: all transferred trials, as well as those that remain within Jammu & Kashmir, must be concluded within one year from receipt of the order and the original records.
Orders the originating courts to transmit the complete original records to the transferee courts within one month.
Calls upon the State of Jammu & Kashmir to show cause within four weeks why prosecutions should not be quashed in several FIRs where charge-sheets have been pending for many years (e.g., FIRs 124, 141 & 146 of 1994; FIR 319 of 2001; and case Nos. 03/05 of 2005).
Directs the State to clarify the custodial status or jail location of an under-trial (Sohrab Khan) whose case particulars were incomplete.
Requires the State to inform whether any appeal has been filed against the acquittal of Sher Khan; if not, the State must recommend his deportation.
Seeks a response from the Union of India on why no action has been taken on deportation recommendations for three other accused.
Sets the matter down for further hearing on 15-12-2008 under the heading “Completed After Notice Matters.”
Directs that copies of the order be circulated to prosecution directors and High Courts in the concerned States for administrative compliance.

Holding and Implications

ORDER MODIFIED; 25 CRIMINAL CASES TRANSFERRED AND TIMELINES IMPOSED

Implications: The immediate effect is that the designated Sessions Courts outside Jammu & Kashmir must commence and finish the transferred trials within one year, and originating courts must cooperate by forwarding complete records within a month. The State faces potential quashing of prosecutions if it cannot justify delays in filing charge-sheets, and both the State and the Union Government may be compelled to act on pending deportation recommendations. No new legal precedent is articulated; the order is directed at administrative efficiency and timely justice in the specified cases.

Show full summary ...

Bhim Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 310 of 2005, Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and the learned counsel for the State.

2. In view of the changed situation our order dated 8-12-2007 is modified thus:

Following cases are transferred from different courts, pending within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as enumerated in Column (2), to the courts outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as enumerated in Column (5):

Sl. No. Name of undertrial prisoner Station and designation of the court in which case is pending Case no. in which undertrial is being tried Names of the district and State in which the jail is situated where the undertrial prisoner has been detained Designation, station and State of the court where the case is being transferred (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Hamid Nu-main Bhat, son of Mohd. Iqbal Bhat Sessions Judge, Srinagar Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 110 of 2002 PS Rajbagh, Srinagar District Jail, Sangroor, State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor within the State of Punjab 2. Mohd. Abdullah code Abu Talaha, son of Hassan Bakshi First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 134 of 2002, PS Bahufort, Jammu District Jail, Sangroor, State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab 3. Shahnawaz Malik alias Fouji, son of Kamadar Malik Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 146 of 1998 PS Handwara Central Jail, Jodhpur, State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 4. Mohd. Yousuf Khaja, son of Mohd. Ayoub Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 158 of 1995 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Agra, within the State of Uttar Pradesh Sessions Judge, Agra, within the State of Uttar Pradesh

5. Buland Khan, son of Atta Khan Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 267 of 2003 PS Kupwara Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 6. Dilawar Sain, son of Hassan Sain Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kupwara Case arising out of FIR No. 274 of 1998 PS Kupwara Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 7. Mohd. Suhail alias Aamir, son of Mohd. Anwar Sessions Judge, Anantnag Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 4 of 2000 PS Kokernag Central Jail, Tihar, NCT, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 8. Waseem Ahmed alias Abu Moha-mmad, son of Mohammad Hussain Sessions Judge, Kathua Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 85 of 2000 PS Anantnag Central Jail, Tihar, NCT, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 9. Mohd. Imran Khan alias Iqbal, son of Mohd. Muzaffar Sessions Judge, Srinagar Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 174 of 2003 PS Ram Munshibagh Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 10. Qamar Ayoub, son of Mohd. Ayoub Sessions Judge, Jammu Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 222 of 2001 PS Nowabad District Jail, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab 11. Zulfikar Ali Rama alias Abu Jhan, son of Mohd. Yasim Sessions Judge, Jammu Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 102 of 2002 PS Pacadanga District Jail, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab 12. Ghulam Abbas alias Jassar alias Hamza, son of Manzoor Hussain Sessions Judge, Jammu Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 1 of 1998 PS Nowabad Central Jail, Varanasi, within the State of Uttar Pradesh Sessions Judge, Varanasi, within the State of Uttar Pradesh 13. Syed Sajad Ali Bukhari, son of Syed Shahpal Sessions Judge, Srinagar Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 136 of 1995 PS Parimpora Central Jail, Varanasi, within the State of Uttar Pradesh Sessions Judge, Varanasi, within the State of Uttar Pradesh 14. Assadullah Qadri, son of Syed Ullah Sessions Judge, Anantnag Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 123 of 1996 PS Anantnag Central Jail, Naini, within the State of Uttar Pradesh Sessions Judge, Allahabad, within the State of Uttar Pradesh

15. Rahil Ahmed Hashmi, son of Mushtaz Ahmed TADA Court, Srinagar Case arising out of FIR No. 21 of 1995 PS Parimpora District Jail, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab 16. Zaffarul Haq Jamali, son of Habib-ul-Rehman Sessions Judge, Poonch Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 1 of 2004 PS Mendhar Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17. Mohd. Mubasir alias Ali Badar, son of Mohd. Tahir Sessions Judge, Kathua Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 11 of 1998 PS Hiranagar Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 18. Akram Asif, son of Mohd. Asif Sessions Judge, Pulwama Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 70 of 2006 PS Gharoota, Jammu Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19. Mohd. Hamza Khan, son of Thok Mohd Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan 20. Khairdin Khan, son of Haji Salam Khan Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam District Jail, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab Sessions Judge, Sangroor, within the State of Punjab 21. Taza Sarbaz, son of Mirza Ahmed Session Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 22. Abdul Gair, son of Abdul Gani Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 23. Baaz Mohmad, son of Mohd. Azim Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 24. Ab. Hamid Khan, son of Mohd. Rahim Khan Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan

25. Mohd. Ayoub Khan, son of Ab. Qadir Khan Sessions Judge, Kupwara Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997 PS Trehgam Central Jail, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, within the State of Rajasthan

3. It is directed that the aforesaid cases, upon transfer, shall be tried either by the Sessions Judge concerned himself or made over for trial to any other court of competent jurisdiction. All the courts are directed to see that the trial is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the original records of the sessions case concerned. All concerned shall cooperate with the courts in deciding cases within the time schedule. The courts concerned, before whom the cases are pending within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the same having not been transferred outside the State, shall also dispose of the same within the said time. The courts in whose courts (sic where) the cases are pending are directed to transmit the original records to the courts where the cases have been transferred so as to reach the said courts within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

4. It has been stated that so far as accused Sonaullah Ranjay alias Bansi Lal, son of Ishaq Hussain is concerned, three cases, namely, FIRs Nos. 124, 141 and 146 of 1994 are pending against him since 1994 and charge-sheets have not been submitted therein as yet. Let the State of Jammu and Kashmir file response within four weeks as to why prosecution in these cases be not quashed on this ground alone.

5. So far as Murtaza Aquib alias Abu Zahid, son of Mohd. Mustafa is concerned, it has been stated that charge-sheet has not been submitted in FIR No. 319 of 2001. Let the State file response within the same time as to why the prosecution be not quashed on this ground alone.

6. So far as Mohd. Nawaz alias Ab. Hazarrat, son of Rehmat Ali, Shahzad Gull, son of Lieutenant Rana Mohd. Ibrahim and Shahid Latief, son of Ab. Latief, who have been lodged in Varanasi Central Jail, are concerned, it appears that the cases bearing Nos. 03/05 PS JIC Jammu were registered against them in 2005 but the police has not submitted charge-sheets as yet. Let the State show cause why investigation has remained pending for such a long time and in case, no satisfactory cause is shown, it would be open to this Court to quash the prosecution. Response may be filed within the same time in this regard.

7. So far as Sher Khan alias Sheru, son of Abdul Qayoom Khan is concerned, it has been stated that he has been already acquitted in sessions case arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2002. It has not been stated that any appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal. In case no appeal has been filed, the State of Jammu and Kashmir is required to recommend his case to the Central Government for deportation. Let the State file response in this regard within the same time.

8. It appears that accused Shahid Jan alias Qasim, son of Bismillah Jan, Fazal Din name Akbar son of Mohd. Sarwar and Mohd. Farooq Janbaz, son of Mohd. Yaqoob were recommended for deportation by the State of Jammu and Kashmir but no steps have been taken by the Central Government in this regard. Let the Union of India file its response within four weeks.

9. So far as Sohrab Khan, son of Mohd. Zahir Khan is concerned, it has not been stated in which jail he has been lodged though it has been stated in the affidavit that the trial against him is pending in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, within the State of Jammu and Kashmir in sessions case arising out of FIR No. 187 of 1997, PS Trehgam. Within the same time the State should furnish the name of the jail.

10. Place the matter on 15-12-2008 under the heading “Completed After Notice Matters”.

11. Let copies of this order be sent to the Director of Prosecution, Jammu and Kashmir, who will see that the records are transmitted to the courts concerned within the aforesaid time schedule and appropriate steps are taken before the transferee court by the prosecution. Copies of this order may be also communicated to the Director of Prosecution, the States of Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh besides the National Capital Territory, Delhi for the needful. Copies of this order be sent to the Registrar General, High Courts of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan, Allahabad and Delhi for giving suitable directions to the courts concerned within their respective limits for compliance with this order. Copies of this order may also be made over to the petitioner, who is appearing in person; Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India and Shri Anis Suhrawardy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Court Masters

Bhim Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Bhim Singh v. Union Of India And Others

Comments