Ashish Mishra’s bail in Lakhimpur case challenged in Supreme Court
The application prayed for cancellation of Ashish Mishra’s bail in the case registered against him in Lakhimpur Kheri and directed the SIT to furnish a copy of charge sheet filed in the case
Days after Allahabad high court granted bail to Lakhimpur Kheri violence accused Ashish Mishra, two lawyers Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the order.
Son of Union minister of state (home) Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’, Ashish is a key accused in the Lakhimpur incident in which four farmers among others died in October last year. The lawyers — CS Panda and Shiv Kumar Tripathi — moved the application under the suo moto (court by its own), petition pending in the top court over the incident.
As per the suo moto petition, the top court had in November 2021 constituted a special investigation team (SIT) of three IPS officers and appointed former Punjab and Haryana high court judge, justice (retired) Rakesh Jain, to oversee the probe.
The application prayed for cancellation of Ashish Mishra’s bail in the case registered against him at Tikuniya police station in Lakhimpur Kheri and directed the SIT to furnish a copy of charge sheet filed in the case.
The application challenged the high court (HC) bail order of February 10 on the ground that the accused’s father is yet to be examined by the SIT and this itself created reasonable apprehension of threat to life in the minds of the victims and witnesses of the case.
“The said bail order enlarging the accused Ashish Mishra alias Monu is to be evaluated in the context of his father the present Union minister of state (home) roaming scot-free…the net effect of bail to the accused Ashish Mishra and non-interrogation of the Union minister of state (home) Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’ by justice (retd) Rakesh Jain led SIT results in greater prejudice affecting the morale of the law abiding peaceful protestors hailing from Lakhimpur local area and other parts of UP,” the application said.
The plea stated, “Following enlargement of the main accused on bail, the victim families/ farmers are now passing through a stage of never-ending fear and confusion nursing the belief that they might be killed anywhere any time, through any mode, even from behind the scene. Hence this court would do well in the matter of providing timely protection of life, liberty and property of the victims and witnesses.”
Ashish was arrested on October 9, 2021 in the incident that took place on October 3. The SIT in its charge sheet had alleged the killing to be “pre-planned”. According to them, Mishra came in a Thar SUV along with a convoy of three-four cars and mowed down protesting farmers, gathered to protest the arrival of UP deputy chief minister Keshav Prasad Maurya. Four of the protesting farmers were killed, following which three occupants from the jeep were pulled out and thrashed resulting in their death. So far, the SIT has not filed any appeal against Ashish’s bail.
The HC in its bail order stated that there were no gunshot injuries even though the prosecution alleged that one of the protesters died during firing by the main accused. It also recorded the fact that three persons in the vehicle were brutally killed. This fact is being investigated under a separate first information report (FIR).
“The reasoning of the high court suffers from the vices of non-application of judicial mind taking recourse to assumptions without the support of direct evidence,” the application stated.
On the HC reasoning that the driver could have run over the farmers in self-defence, the plea stated, “No presumption pre-conceived action ought to creep into the judicial mind while dealing with a case of heinous crime of murder. How could the learned HC justice rest his reasoning on presumption and guess work using the word “might” to arrive at a conclusion that the said crime culminated in a possibility of the driver trying to speed up the vehicle to save himself? The said conclusion by the learned justice is unsustainable in law.”
The application also alleged bias and inaction against the SIT and sought separate directions from the court to call for a report from the retired judge monitoring the case on tardy progress of investigation and a fresh status report.
The application said, “There is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the letter petitioners that no effective role was discharged by the newly formed SIT in opposing the bail applications of the accused as named in FIR no.219/21. It appears that the police and the prosecution displayed lethargy in bringing the culprits to justice to such an extent that certain prosecution loopholes came to be developed for want of appropriate stricter steps to conserve and preserve the material evidences.”