Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

"Heinous Crime": Allahabad High Court Affirms Detention Of 3 Under NSA Who Allegedly Burnt A Young Girl To Death

Sparsh Upadhyay
27 July 2021 5:02 AM GMT
Heinous Crime: Allahabad High Court Affirms Detention Of 3 Under NSA Who Allegedly Burnt A Young Girl To Death
x

The Allahabad High Court last week affirmed the detention of 3 men under National Security Act, 1980 who are accused of burning a young girl alive by pouring petrol, on account of which she died. The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed that on account of this heinous crime, public order was disturbed and parents living in the area had stopped...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Allahabad High Court last week affirmed the detention of 3 men under National Security Act, 1980 who are accused of burning a young girl alive by pouring petrol, on account of which she died.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari observed that on account of this heinous crime, public order was disturbed and parents living in the area had stopped the children from going to school especially, the daughters were forbidden.

The facts in brief

On February 1, 2020, a girl, who was B.Sc. III Year student was called at Ram Naresh Hotel in Raebareli by the petitioners and other co-accused persons and after kidnapping her, she was put in Maruti Omni and after putting anesthetic medicine in a handkerchief, snorted her and made her unconscious.

Thereafter, her hands and feet were tied with a rope and in a state of unconsciousness took her to the eucalyptus orchard situated near Gopal Dhaba on the side of the road and burnt her alive by pouring petrol, on account of which she died.

After due investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and four accused persons, wherein it was found that the petitioners and other coaccused persons had committed the said heinous offence.

It was alleged that the public order was disturbed and the public was outraged due to the murder of a young girl and parents of a young daughter of the locality were adversely making statements against the Government and District Administration.

As the petitioners had applied for bail before the Hon'ble High Court, there was a possibility of release of the petitioners on bail and to again indulge in such activities which were likely to adversely affect public order, therefore, the detention by the detaining authority was passed under the Act, 1980 [invoking the provisions of Section 3 (2) of Act]

Thus, the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order dated August 27, 2020 for detaining the petitioners under Section 3 (2) of the Act, 1980.

On September 5, 2020, the petitioners sent their representation, which was rejected by the Detaining Authority on September 8, 2020 and another representation, which was sent by the petitioners, to the State Government was also rejected on September 18, 2020.

The Central Government also rejected the representation on November 11, 2020.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the manner in which the incident took place and that the petitioners are also the accused in the brutal murder of a young girl, goes to show that their activities were of such a nature which definitely disturb the tempo of society and public tranquility.

The Court also observed that even one solitary incident may give rise to the disturbance of 'public order'.

Thus, the Court said:

"We are unable to hold that there was no material before the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion, it did, to say that the activities of petitioners can be construed as activities prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order," within the meaning of SubSection (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1980."

Therefore, the court held that the instances of petitioners' activities, enumerated in the grounds of detention, clearly showed that the activities covered a wide field and fall within the contours of the concept of "public order"and the Detaining Authority was justified in law in passing the impugned order of detention as its confirmation order against the petitioners.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order

Next Story
Share it