"Tearing Hurry, Myopic View" : Supreme Court On HC Order Granting Bail To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 April 2022 10:20 AM GMT

  • Tearing Hurry, Myopic View : Supreme Court On HC Order Granting Bail To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Case

    In the order cancelling Ashish Mishra's bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court has expressed its disappointment at Allahabad High Court for refusing to hear the victims of the case before granting him bail.The Court also made a critical comment about the "tearing hurry" shown by the High Court in granting bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Kumar Mishra.The...

    In the order cancelling Ashish Mishra's bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court has expressed its disappointment at Allahabad High Court for refusing to hear the victims of the case before granting him bail.

    The Court also made a critical comment about the "tearing hurry" shown by the High Court in granting bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Kumar Mishra.

    The Top Court noted that the High Court ought to have acknowledged the rights of the victims to participate in the hearings of the bail pleas of the accused. The close relatives of the farmers who got killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence had sought to intervene in the bail application filed by Mishra before the High Court. However, their lawyers could not make effective submissions as they got disconnected during the virtual hearing.  Though they filed an application for re-hearing, the High Court did not consider it.

    Regarding this approach of the High Court, the Supreme Court noted :

    "...we are constrained to express our disappointment with the manner in which the High Court has failed to acknowledge the right of the victims. It is worth mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present Appellants, are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident dated 03.10.2021. The specific stance taken by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that the Counsel for the 'victims' had got disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make effective submissions before the High Court has not been controverted by the Respondents. Thereafter, an application seeking a rehearing on the ground that the 'victims' could not participate in the proceedings was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to the Respondent­Accused".

    A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli made the observations while allowing the appeal filed by the victims challenging the bail order. The State of Uttar Pradesh had not challenged the bail order despite a recommendation to that effect being made by the Judge monitoring the Special Investigation Team.

    Irrelevant considerations by the High Court

    The Supreme Court also criticised the High Court for placing reliance on irrelevant considerations while granting bail. The High Court had noted that the post-mortem report did not show any firearm injuries on the deceased though it was alleged in the FIR that Mishra had fired at the protesters. This approach was disapproved by the Supreme Court, which observed that the High Court entered into factual issues which are subject to trial.

    Also, the High Court ignored relevant considerations and adopted a "myopic view" of the evidence on record.

    "Instead of looking into aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offence; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused or victims; likelihood of the accused fleeing; likelihood of tampering with the evidence and witnesses and the impact that his release may have on the trial and the society at large; the High Court has adopted a myopic view of the evidence on the record and proceeded to decide the case on merits", the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant observed.

    "We are, thus, of the view that this Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail..",the judgment added.

    At the same time, the Court protected the right of the accused to seek bail. In order to strike a balance, the Court remanded the bail application to the High Court for fresh consideration.

    Click here to read/download the order


    Next Story