In the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case involving Ashish Mishra, the Supreme Court today forwarded an application levelling allegations against the trial judge to the Allahabad High Court for appropriate action.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered the Registry to forward an application filed by the complainant flagging concerns about the change in the Public Prosecutor and conduct of the trial judge. The bench orally asked the State of UP, represented by Advocate Ruchika Goel, to ensure that a senior PP is entrusted with prosecuting the case.

"Registry is directed to forward a copy of the application to Allahabad High Court with a request to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial action. High Court will forward a report to this court in sealed cover pursuant to action that may be taken by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.", the bench ordered.

The case pertains to the killing of 8 persons in October 2021, after vehicles allegedly linked to Mishra's convoy ran over 4 protesting farmers during the agitation against the farm laws. Mishra is the son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the complainant/victims and argued that the trial judge/Presiding Officer's conduct was "shocking". The Counsel took exception to the Judge issuing a non-bailable warrant against a witness who was ill. Bhushan further contended that the Judge's conduct in other cases raised questions, as he was acquitting accused after withdrawing cases from other courts to himself.

"Some disturbing events have taken place. Judge who is currently dealing with it...what he has done is quite shocking. He has withdrawn NDPS, SC/ST cases to himself and granted bail...acquitted people in matters which were at fag end of trial. In this case, he first issues non-bailable warrants to an eye- witness. He has ridden absolutely roughshod over this case! Not just this case. So many cases. Illness slip had been given, with doctor's certificate. Enquiry now initiated against this judge. Police went to this witness, then he said excuse me, I don't want to appear" Bhushan submitted.

At first, the CJI noted that there must be pressure on the trial judge given the Supreme Court's directions to complete the trial in a time-bound manner. "On one hand, we say expedite. Then PP says my witness is not available. Sometimes officer has to take steps. Look at pressure on the officer. This is not acceptable to us", the CJI commented.

Bhushan however highlighted that the judge had withdrawn even NDPS cases to himself, for which there is a special court. To this, CJI responded, "We are not concerned about NDPS cases. Maybe 1 witness did not come...PP has to explain that witness is unable to come due to valid reason".

Bhushan subsequently underlined that the Public Prosecutor to whom the case was marked also been replaced by a new, inexperienced prosecutor. He further alleged that the site plan relevant to the case had "disappeared" from the court record.

"This judge is running havoc over the district. Just see how many cases persons acquitted. Under law, he cannot withdraw to himself" Bhushan submitted. Justice Bagchi however replied that it is something that the High Court has to take notice of.

Bhushan then beseeched before the court that the trial judge must be changed.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi raised questions about the conduct of the Prosecutor, noting that some crucial witnesses were given up.

At this point, Justice Bagchi expressed to the State's counsel that a Public Prosecutor giving up witnesses "would not be a very fair prosecution".

Bhushan again contended that the trial judge must be changed. "If he [judge] continues with this case...I can guarantee what will happen. They will say no incident happened, site plan is not there. There will be gross miscarriage of justice if this officer continues with the case", he submitted.

Ultimately, the bench passed the above order forwarding the application to the High Court.

Case: Ashish Mishra alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022