Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Judge Monitoring SIT Probe Has Recommended Challenging Ashish Mishra's Bail, Supreme Court Tells UP Government

The Bench was considering a special leave petition filed by the family members of the farmers who got killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri crime challenging the bail granted to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, by the Allahabad High Court.

The Court took up the SLP along with a PIL registered on the basis of a letter petition sent by two lawyers seeking impartial probe into the Lakhmipur Kheri violence.

On March 15, the Supreme Court had issued notice on the special leave petition. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, the counsel for the petitioners, had submitted before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India that one of witnesses in the case was attacked on the day of the UP election results after the victory of the BJP in the assembly polls.

The Bench had then asked the State of UP to see that the witnesses are protected.

The State of Uttar Pradesh through its affidavit has told the Supreme Court that the decision regarding challenging the bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhmipur Kheri case is "pending consideration before the relevant authorities".

The State refuted the allegation that it did not effectively oppose his bail before the High Court. The State has submitted that in accordance with Supreme Court's orders in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the families of all the victims and all the witnesses whose Section 164 statements were recorded, have been receiving continuous security under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018.

The State also said that the attack of witness, which occurred on March 10, was not related to Lakhmipur Kheri case and was the result of an altercation related to throwing of colours during Holi celebrations.

Bail Order:

In the bail order, the High Court had observed that it is possible that the driver of the offending vehicle must have tried to speed up to protect himself from the protesters.

"..in case, the story of the prosecution is accepted, thousands of protesters gathered at the place of incident and there might be a possibility that the driver tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place", the Court had observed.

The Court, in its order, observed that primarily, only two allegations had been leveled against Mishra - firstly, of causing firearm injury to the deceased person and secondly – of provoking his driver to crush the protesters.

Regarding the first allegation, the Court observed that no firearm injury had been found on the body of the deceased or any other person, except the injury of the hitting from the vehicle.

Further, on the question of hitting the protestors, the Court opined thus:

" …in case, the story of the prosecution is accepted, thousands of protesters gathered at the place of incident and there might be a possibility that the driver tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place."

Petition Before Supreme Court

According to the petitioners, the impugned order is perverse because the chargesheet in the case was filed on 03.01.2022, however the bail applicant did not bring the same on record before the High Court and the High Court neither considered nor dealt with the overwhelming evidence against the accused in chargesheet

The petition filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, has stated that the lack of any discussion in the High Court's order as regards the settled principles for grant of bail is on account of lack of any substantive submissions to this effect by the State as the accused wields substantial influence over the State government as his father is a Union Minister from the same political party that rules the State.

Further, according to the petitioners, the observation of the High Court that, "there might be a possibility that the driver tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place", is perverse especially when there was nothing on record to show the same.

Further, the petition has pointed out that there is evidence in fact in the chargesheet to the contrary showing that the vehicles had been dashing at high speeds of 70-100 km/hr from the time they left the venue of the 'dangal'; when they passed the petrol pump, when they crossed the police crossing; all the way to the scene of the crime; and the same has been attested to by various eye witnesses including police officials on duty.

Background

The crime took place on October 3, when several farmers were holding protests against the visit of Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya to Lakhimpur Kheri district, and four protesting farmers were killed after they were mowed down by an SUV which was part of the convoy of Ashish Mishra.

The Supreme Court in November 2021 appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to monitor the investigation in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence.

This order came from the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, which is hearing a PIL registered on the basis of a letter petition sent by two lawyers seeking an impartial probe into the Lakhimpur Kheri violence of October 3.

The UP Police arrested Mishra following the critical remarks by the Supreme Court.

Case Details: Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs Ashish Mishra Alias Monu & Anr, In Re Violence In Lakhimpur Kheri(UP) Leading To Loss Of Life

Click Here To Read/Download Order