Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1983) 3 SCR 508] , but without indicating anything more. In Bhim Singh v. State of J & K [(1985) 4 SCC 677 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 47] , illegal detention in police custody of the petitioner Bhim Singh was held to constitute violation of his rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) and this Court exercising its power to award compensation under Article 32 directed the State to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner for violation of his constitutional right by way of exemplary costs or otherwise, taking this power to be settled by the decisions in Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and Sebastian M. Hongray [(1984) 3 SCC 82 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 407 : (1984) 3 SCR http://www.judis.nic.in 544(II)] . In Saheli [(1990) 1 SCC 422 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 145] the State was held liable to pay compensation payable to the mother of the deceased who died as a result of beating and assault by the police. However, the principle indicated therein was that the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. In State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil [(1991) 2 SCC 373 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 656] the award of compensation by the High Court for violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of an undertrial prisoner, who was handcuffed and taken through the streets in a procession by the police during investigation, was upheld.