Requested UP Govt Twice To File Urgent Appeal Against Ashish Mishra's Bail : Lakhimpur Kheri SIT Tells Supreme Court
The Special Investigation Team constituted to investigate the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident has in its report submitted before the Supreme Court that the head of the SIT wrote to the UP Government twice requesting an urgent appeal in the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail of the main accused Ashish MishraThe Supreme Court had appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of the...
The Special Investigation Team constituted to investigate the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident has in its report submitted before the Supreme Court that the head of the SIT wrote to the UP Government twice requesting an urgent appeal in the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail of the main accused Ashish Mishra
The Supreme Court had appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to monitor the investigation in the case and had also reconstituted the Special Investigation Team.
"The head of SIT wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh on 10/02/2022 and 14/02/2022 respectively requesting an urgent appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court for cancellation of bail of the accused in view of the ongoing investigation in FIR No. 219/2021 and possibility of the threat to the witnesses including 98 witnesses who are provided protection is view of order dated 26/10/2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court" the SIT has stated in its report.
Based on the evidence on record, the SIT has in its report further stated that the presence of the main accused Ashish Mishra and others at the scene of crime is substantiated.
Further, according to the SIT it is also substantiated that the 13 accused (and three dead accused) went to the scene of crime in a premeditated manner, using three vehicles in a convoy and driving them at a very high speed on a narrow road which was full of people gathered to protest.
Even the district administration had changed the route of the Chief Guest of the Dangal function in view of the protest and the main accused was well aware of the changed route for the Chief Guest.
According to the SIT, the accused after committing the crime escaped by firing their weapons in the air to scare away the protestors and the ballistic reports by FSL of these weapons confirm the use of the weapons.
The SIT has informed the court that it used all the technical evidence available and expeditiously completed the investigation against the arrested accused and filed charge sheet against 13 accused who were in judicial custody on 03/01/2022 to ensure that they do not get undue benefit under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The report has also stated that in compliance Supreme Court's order dated 20.10.2021 regarding providing security to witnesses, 98 witnesses were provided security by Uttar Pradesh administration. 79 witnesses out of 98 belonged to District Lakhimpur Kheri and remaining 19 witnesses are native of other districts of Uttar Pradesh. The security is continuously being provided.
According to the report, during the course of investigation, statements of 99 witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973. The SIT recorded 8 statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In 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, by the Allahabad High Court, Supreme Court had on 1st April told the State of Uttar Pradesh that the judge appointed to monitor the Special Investigation Team has recommended that the State should file an appeal challenging it.
The Court had sought the State's response to the stand of the monitoring judge.
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."