Lakhimpur Kheri violence: Supreme Court questions UP govt over delay in challenging Mishra’s bail

The apex court pointed out that the retired high court judge monitoring the special investigation team recommended to the state authorities twice to seek cancellation of Ashish Mishra’s bail.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government over the delay in challenging the bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union minister Ajay Mishra “Teni”, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, pointing out that the retired high court judge monitoring the special investigation team (SIT) recommended to the state authorities twice to seek cancellation of Mishra’s bail.

Ashish Mishra was granted bail by the Allahabad high court in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case on February 10. (PTI)

“It appears from the report of the monitoring judge that he recommended for filing application against the order of the Allahabad high court. What is your stand?” Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana asked senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani. The senior counsel was appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, which filed an affidavit on March 23 saying the state was still to make up its mind on filing an appeal against the bail to Mishra -- the prime accused in the case -- by the Allahabad high court on February 10.

Jethmalani replied that he was unaware of any such recommendation, but the bench, which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, pointed out that there were two letters on record by the former Punjab and Haryana high court judge Rakesh Kumar Jain, who is monitoring the SIT probe, asking the state to file an appeal against the HC order granting bail to Mishra.

“We have two letters from the monitoring judge. One is dated February 10 (the same day bail was granted to Mishra) and then on February 14. These letters have been addressed to the additional home secretary,” said the court, asking Jethmalani to clarify the stand of the state government by Monday.

The bench said that it will also hand over Jain’s letters and reports to the state government as well as other parties in the case to enable them to advance arguments.

Appearing for the victim’s families, senior advocate Dushyant Dave emphasised that in view of the letters from the monitoring judge as well as the state government’s submission that it opposed Mishra’s bail plea before the Allahabad high court, the Supreme Court should either stay the high court order or cancel Mishra’s bail. To this, the bench said that it would wait for the state government to come back with categorical instructions on the matter on Monday.

On November 17, the bench appointed Jain to monitor the probe into the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, in which eight people were killed on October 3, 2021. Four farmers and a journalist were run over by a car allegedly belonging to Mishra. In the ensuing violence, three people – two political workers and a driver – were killed.

The court, which initiated suo motu (on its own motion) proceedings into the matter, underscored that the appointment of a former judge from outside Uttar Pradesh to oversee the probe would “ensure transparency, fairness and absolute impartiality in the outcome of the investigation”.

By the same order, the court also ordered a new SIT to probe the violence and inducted three Indian Police Service (IPS) officers in the team, asking them to complete the investigation “expeditiously” and in a timebound manner, and by using latest forensic investigative methods “to reach the truth”. In October and November 2021, the apex court issued directives to the state government to ascertain that the witnesses in the case are kept out of harm’s way.

Mishra was arrested on October 9 after repeated criticism of the state government for the way it handled the investigation in the case. On February 10, he was granted bail by the Allahabad high court.

The petition seeking cancellation of Mishra’s bail was filed by Jagjeet Singh, Pawan Kashyap and Sukhwinder Singh – the kin of three victims who died in the violence. In their petition, they feared that the witnesses in the case would be intimidated as the accused was influential. It was also contended that the bail order did not consider the heinous nature of the crime, the overwhelming evidence against the accused in the charge sheet, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of his tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

On March 16, the bench issued notices to the state and Mishra on this petition while also asking the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure protection of witnesses in the wake of a complaint regarding an alleged attack on one of the key witnesses on March 10.

Responding to the notice, the state government said in an affidavit on March 23 that the attack was due to a local altercation and not related to either the violence last year or Ashish Mishra getting bail.

In the affidavit, the state also refuted the petitioners’ claim that it did not oppose Mishra’s bail before the Allahabad HC. “The respondent’s (Ashish Mishra’s) bail application was vehemently opposed by the state and any averments to the contrary in the special leave petition (SLP) are completely false and merit to be rejected,” the affidavit stated.