Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

"Media Conducts Agenda Driven Debates, Runs Kangaroo Courts & Oversteps Upon Sanctity Of Judiciary": Allahabad HC In Ashish Mishra Bail Order

Sparsh Upadhyay

26 July 2022 11:06 AM GMT

    • Media Conducts Agenda Driven Debates, Runs Kangaroo Courts & Oversteps Upon Sanctity Of Judiciary: Allahabad HC In Ashish Mishra Bail Order

    Denying bail to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case, the Allahabad High Court today pointed toward the recent trend in media to conduct ill-informed and agenda-driven debates. The Court also said that the media has been overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases. Speaking about media trials, the Court said that such trials...

    Denying bail to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case, the Allahabad High Court today pointed toward the recent trend in media to conduct ill-informed and agenda-driven debates. The Court also said that the media has been overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases. 
    Speaking about media trials, the Court said that such trials take up the investigation on its own, which leads to forming of public opinion against a suspect, even before the court takes cognizance of the case.
    As a result, the Court said, the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated a criminal and added that this problem has been multiplied by electronic and social media, especially with the use of tool kits. Further, the Court also blamed the media for running Kangaroo Courts.

    Apart from this, the Court also added that of late, the media is seen overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases, as was evident in the cases of Jessica Lal, Indrani Mukherjee, and Aarushi Talwar, etc. 

    The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further remarked that the media is supposed to provide news to society, but sometimes, individual views are overshadowing the news thus putting an adverse effect on truth.
    Further, stressing that the excessive publicity of the suspect in the media before the trial in a court of law, either incriminates a fair trial or results in characterizing the accused as the one who has certainly committed the crime, the Court observed thus:
    "The vital difference between the convict and accused has to be looked into by keeping at stake the cardinal principles of 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' and 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt'. Media trial apart from taking up the investigation on its own leads to forming public opinion against the suspect even before the court takes cognizance of the case as a result the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated a criminal. The excessive publicity of the suspect in the media before the trial in a court of law, either incriminates a fair trial or results in characterizing the accused or suspect as the one who has certainly committed the crime"
    Additionally, referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Anr., the Court referred to the Supreme Court's observations holding that held that when there is an ongoing trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country then trial by newspapers must be prohibited.
    Herein, the Live Law readers may note that Allahabad High Court made these observations as it opined that had both sides observed a bit of restraint, we would not have seen the loss of eight invaluable human lives in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. 

    5 persons (four farmers and one journalist) from the side of the victim and three persons from the side of the applicant died in this incident. In addition to it, 13 persons sustained injuries from the side of the informant and 3 from the side of the applicant.

    Though the Court denied bail to Mishra, however, in the order, it has been specifically observed that since the District Administration had issued a proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. during the time of the incident, therefore, the same was applicable not only to the accused and his associates but also to the agitating/protesting farmers. 
    Bail order 
    The Court said that several inconsistencies, embellishments and improvements have been referred by the defence in the statements of witnesses to the site plan, however, the same cannot be delved into at this stage, rather are to be seen by the trial court concerned. 
    Importantly, the Court underscored that the presence of the three vehicles at the spot from one of which the applicant/Mishra was seen coming out is a crucial circumstance weighing against the applicant.
    "The said Thar vehicle was registered in the name ofthe  father of the applicant and he was seen in the said vehicle recovered from the spot, although the applicant was not seen driving it. There are two FIRs lodged by the witnesses having being threatened. The cross-version to the present case does not help the accused," the Court observed.

    Consequently, taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, there being an apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, the severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court denied the bail plea.

    The background of the bail plea

    Mishra's bail plea was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration by the Supreme Court in April 2022 month while allowing the appeal filed by the victims challenging the bail order of Allahabad High Court.

    Essentially, the Allahabad High Court had, on Feb 10, granted bail to Ashish Mishra after noting that there might be a possibility that the driver (of Thar) tried to speed up the vehicle to save himself, on account of which, the incident had taken place.

    Thereafter, the Victims moved to the Apex Court to challenge HC's order, however, the State of Uttar Pradesh did not challenge the bail order despite a recommendation to that effect being made by the Judge monitoring the Special Investigation Team.

    In the order canceling Ashish Mishra's bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court in April 2022 expressed its disappointment at Allahabad High Court for refusing to hear the victims of the case before granting him bail.

    The Court had 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 had 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 rehearing, the High Court did not consider it.

    Now, the matter, after being remanded back to the High Court, was before the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal who had earlier granted two weeks' time to the Victim Jagjeet Singh to file a counter-affidavit.

    In related news, denying bail to 4 prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence incident, the Allahabad High Court in May 2022 observed that the incident might not have taken place if the Union Minister of State for Home had not made alleged utterances threatening farmers to chase them away from District Kheri.

    "Political persons holding high offices, should make public utterances in a decent language considering its repercussions in the Society. They should not make irresponsible statements as they are required to conduct themselves befitting their status and dignity of high office which they hold," the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said.

    The Court also found it intriguing as to why the wrestling competition was organized when Section 144 Cr.P.C. was imposed in the area and why the Union Minister of State for Home Ajay Mishra Teni and the Deputy Chief Minister, Keshav Prasad Maurya decided to be present as Chief Guest etc. in the event.

    Stressing that the lawmakers cannot be seen to be law violators, the court called it unbelieve that it would not have been within the knowledge of the Deputy Chief Minister of the State that in the area provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C. were clamped and, any assembly or gathering was prohibited.

    Significantly, the Court lauded the efforts of the Special Investigation Team for carrying out a free, fair, impartial and scientific investigation of the offence. With this, the Bench noted that the charge sheet disclosed overwhelming evidence against the accused-applicant and co-accused for the commission of the offence, which has been termed cruel, diabolic, brutal, barbaric, depraved, gruesome, and inhumane.

    Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2021]

    Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 341

    Tags
    Allahabad High CourtAshish MishraLakhimpur Kheri Violencelakhimpur kheri violenceLakhimpur KheriLakhimpur Kheri IncidentJustice Krishan PahalAshish Mishra BailUnion Minister's Son Ashish Mishraashish mishra
    Next Story
    X