Lakhimpur Kheri violence: SC seeks time frame to finish Ashish Mishra’s bail trial
Having spent over a year in custody since his arrest in October last year, Mishra had approached the top court after being denied bail by the Allahabad high court on July 26. He had claimed that the trial would take long as statements of only 98 witnesses out of 212 were recorded so far.
The Supreme Court on Monday said that keeping Ashish Mishra, son of Union minister of state (home) Ajay Mishra, indefinitely in jail may amount to “pre-judging his guilt” in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case and sought a report from the trial judge in Uttar Pradesh on the estimated time for completion of the trial to decide on his bail plea.
Having spent over a year in custody since his arrest in October last year, Mishra had approached the top court after being denied bail by the Allahabad high court on July 26. He had claimed that the trial would take long as statements of only 98 witnesses out of 212 were recorded so far.
On October 3, 2021, violence had erupted in the Tikunia kotwali area of Lakhimpur Kheri amid the agitation of farmers when four farmers and a journalist were allegedly crushed to death by speeding vehicles. In the ensuing violence, two BJP workers and a driver were lynched to death by the agitated farmers. Mishra is among 14 accused in one of the FIRs filed over the incident. He was arrested on October 9.
During Monday’s hearing, the state government termed the charges against him as serious and the complainants, comprising kin of the deceased farmers, accused Mishra of attacking the victims through his associates for revealing his presence at the incident spot on October 3, 2021.
The prosecution claimed that a cavalcade of cars with Mishra sitting in one of them, mowed down the protesting farmers and a journalist.
The bench of justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari said, “How long should someone be kept inside? Keeping him indefinitely (in jail), will it not be pre-judging his guilt?”
In order to balance the rights of the accused with that of the victims, the bench held, “The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to communicate with the presiding officer of Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri and find out as to how much time, in normal course, conclusion of trial is likely to take without compromising with the schedule of pending or prioritized matters.”
Posting the matter to January 11, the Court clarified, “The presiding officer shall not submit tentative schedule on the assumption that this case is to be tried on out of turn basis.”
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar appearing for Mishra told the Court that there is doubt over Mishra’s presence at the incident spot as he was present at a ‘dangal (wrestling)’ event organised at a place nearly four kilometres away. Further, they argued that this was a case of cross-FIRs as two persons inside the car and the driver were killed in the violence but that complaint had not progressed despite the charge sheet being filed in February.
The bench told the state government to file an affidavit pointing out the status of the investigation and trial arising out of the complaint filed with regard to the other case referred by Mishra. The court further said, “The Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur shall consider the desirability of issue of framing of charge in the above FIR as charge sheet has been filed on February 20.”
The state, represented by additional advocate general (AAG) Garima Parshad, told the Court that the charges against Mishra were “grave” and the trial court recently dismissed an application filed by him seeking discharge in the case.
Terming the death of farmers as an “unfortunate incident” the bench told the state that it was conscious of the gravity of the offence but will not determine whether the accused was present at the spot of incident. “Scope of our jurisdiction is not to appreciate evidence. Ultimately it is a matter of trial.”
The fact that 98 witnesses who have deposed so far have been granted security by the state as per top court’s direction, the bench said, “That is rightly done. Besides them, if the state feels there are witnesses who are vulnerable to threat they should also be provided security until they depose in trial.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the victims told the Court that Mishra is “extraordinarily powerful” and the fact that he has undergone one year in jail should not weigh with the Court to consider his bail plea. He reminded the Court that in February, the Allahabad HC had granted bail to Mishra and the state did not oppose it. The victims challenged the order in the top court and got it reversed in April. In November last, the top court formed a special investigation team (SIT) and appointed a former Punjab and Haryana high court judge to monitor the investigation.
The bench said, “He is inside because of our order. In a criminal case, victims and accused have rights. Besides, we feel that society too has interests. How to draw a balance is the question.” Further, the Court added, “If we do not grant bail and put pressure on the judge to complete trial, it will harm the interest of victims.”
The HC, while denying bail to Mishra, had said, “Taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, there being apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
