Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has turned down the appeal filed by the family of Hathras rape and murder casualty claiming wrongful confinement at their home by the district administration.
A division bench containing Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Prakash Padia noticed that state government had just been led to register affidavits explaining its stand in the whole case by the Supreme Court.
The judges stated: “In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, judicial propriety demands that it will not be proper for this court to entertain the present petition on merits, especially when security has been provided to petitioners 1 to 6 and other family members of the deceased victim-girl on the observation made by the apex court.”
Comparable directions had just been given by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a suo motu petition on October 1, the court included.
Moreover, the state of Uttar Pradesh has just been ordered to register an affidavit explaining its stands.
The court additionally stated: “If the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to file appropriate petition/application before the apex court.”
Overlooking a habeas corpus writ appeal, the division bench additionally noted: “Without entering into the merits of the case, with the above observations, the petition is dismissed.”
Notably, the family of the Hathras rape casualty had registered an appeal under the watchful eye of the Allahabad high court claiming that the district administration had wrongfully confined them in their home and that they were not being permitted to move openly.
Thus, the court was mentioned to coordinate the district administration that: “family members be released from illegal confinement and be allowed to move out of their house and meet people”.
The appeal was registered by one Surender Kumar, national general secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Valmiki Mahapanchayat, for Om Prakash, father of the casualty, alongside her mother, two more relatives, and two brothers.
It was additionally asserted that: “though, at a later stage, a few people were allowed to meet the petitioners, the district administration is still not permitting them (the petitioners) to move out of their house at free will”.
