False Imprisonment is the total restrain on a person's movement with the use of unlawful force by an unauthorised body. False imprisonment is classified both as a crime and a tort. False imprisonment can be caused by both private individuals; and by government detention. Under the Indian Penal Code, false imprisonment is defined under section 340 as "wrongful confinement". Section 339 to 348 of the Indian Penal code deals with other matters in this form.

False imprisonment is a violation of a person's Right to free movement under Article 19(1) G of the Constitution and Right to Life and Liberty under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Essentials:

Knowledge of the Plaintiff:
Under False imprisonment, it is not essential for the plaintiff to know that he/she has been detained at the given point of time. An action for false imprisonment will hold irrespective of the fact whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the false imprisonment.

Period of confinement:
The factor of a period of confinement gains relevance when the damages are to be decided for false imprisonment. Lawful detention can become unlawful if the plaintiff is detained for a prolonged period.

Place of Confinement:
The plaintiff doesn't have to be put behind the bars to be confined. Confinement can also refer to detention in a place from where either the plaintiff is not allowed to exit or if he/she is unaware of the way out.

To constitute false imprisonment the confinement must be complete. Complete confinement means that the plaintiff should be blocked from all known directions. Restricting one-way access to a certain place is called partial restrain. Partial restrain does not constitute wrongful confinement.

Defence against False Imprisonment

Valid Arrest:
No action of false imprisonment can be brought if the arrest was a legally valid one. A lawful arrest can also be conducted if the authorities have sufficient reason o believe a person is guilty of the felony he is accused of. A person can also be detained if he arrested another person without valid reasons.

Consent to restrain:
A person who has consented to be detained cannot bring forth a claim of false imprisonment. However, the consent must be obtained without resorting to unfair means like fraud, coercion etc. Consent to restrain is a commonly used defence against false imprisonment.

Probable cause:
This is an absolute defence against false imprisonment or false arrest. The test for false imprisonment is subjective rather than objective, it is not based on the real commission of crimes by the individual but on the probability that the accused did commit the crime.

Remedies for False Imprisonment

Action for damages:

Damage for false imprisonment flows from the detention of an individual. The damages are measured only at the time of indictment or arraignment. Damages are left to be determined by the court. Factors such as loss of time, earnings, medical hazards, mental trauma may form relevant factors while determining the damage.

Writ for Haebus Corpus:

The term "haebus corpus" means basically to "to have a body". Article 32 and Article 226 enables the citizen to invoke the writ of habeus corpus in the supreme court and the high court respectively. Either the person detained or his family member can invoke the writ of haebus corpus for the immediate release of a person from unlawful detention of a private person or government. The writ of haebus corpus can also be used to release a person who has been under false imprisonment.

Self-Help:
Anyone who has been unlawfully detained can use reasonable and appropriate force to get out of the scenario. One can use his/her right to private defence to free himself. However, the force used must be proportionate to the harm caused or threat imposed by the detention.

Case Laws:

Bhim Sinch v/s State Of Jammu And Kashmir

In this case, the petitioner, an MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was wrongly detained by the police while he was goin to attend the assembly session. He was not presented before the magistrate in 24 hours and hence he lost his constitutional right to attend the session . There was also a violation of his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the constitution.

By the time petition was filed in the supreme court, Bhim Singh had been released. He was awarded exemplary damage of rs 50000 as a relief.

D.K Basu v/s State Of West Bengal

This case deals with custodial death. The Supreme court held that Custodial deaths were a violation of human dignity. The petitioner raised the question if monterey compensation should be alloted to those who had been subjected to police torture for the infringe ment for their fundamental right under article 21 and 22.

The court held that custodial violence , including death and torture were the balant violation of the Rule of Law. The authorities are not only regulated by the rule of law but are also bound by it. Transparency od action and accountability were the two safeguard that were laid down by the court.

The court issued 11 directives that were the rights of the person arrested and the manner in which the authority could arrest the accused. And the manner in which it was expected to behave with the accused. . This included having a written record for detention, medical treatment of the accused and informing the family of the detained.

Rudal Shah v/s State Of Bihar

In this case the petitioner was unlawfully confined in the jail as an undertrial in the jail for several years in spite of his acquittal by the court. The High court hel that as soon as the accused was declared free, he was entitled to getaway. Any detention after that was considered to be illegal

Conclusion
False imprisonment or confining someone in a restricted space, unlawfully is one of the most severe violations of human rights. It is a blow to the base of non-violence, the dignity that the socio-legal platform is based on. The rise of custodial torture is has caused an increase in violation of article 21 and article 20.

The jail authorities are not entitled to torture a person merely because he is suspected of committing a crime. An accused/prisoner has the right to protect himself from custodial torture.