Lakhimpur Kheri Violence : Supreme Court Seeks Ashish Mishra's Response On Allegations Of Threatening Witnesses

The Supreme Court today sought the response of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, on allegations of threatening witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case related to killing of 5 persons in October 2021, when vehicles of his convoy allegedly ran over a group of farmers who were protesting against the farm laws.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, considering an application filed alleging that Mishra threatened witnesses in the case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mishra, refuted the allegations, saying that every time some application is filed "not for the Court, but for those outside". The senior counsel further contended that in the photographs attached to support the allegation, the person seen is not Mishra.

Justice Kant, however, expressed that Mishra shall respond to the allegations formally, by filing an affidavit.

Background

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Mishra on February 10, 2022, but it was set aside by a Supreme Court bench comprising then CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli in April 2022 after noting that the High Court took into account irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant factors. The bail application was then remanded to the High Court. The Supreme Court's order came in an appeal filed by the relatives of the farmers who got killed in the incident.

After re-hearing the matter, the High Court dismissed the bail application.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court granted Mishra interim bail for 8 weeks, which was extended from time to time. The order came with a slew of conditions. The interim bail order was later made absolute. The Court permitted Mishra to stay either in Delhi or Lucknow, UP. He was further asked to abide by other terms and conditions imposed in the 2023 order.

In the order making interim bail absolute, the Court underlined the need for expediting trial and called for a status report from the Trial Court. “We direct the Trial Court to fix the schedule, keeping in view the other time-bound or urgent matters that are pending but prioritising the subject trial. The Public prosecutor shall inform the Trial Court of the witnesses (not less than 5) who shall be produced on the date fixed. The State shall ensure that all witnesses shall remain present.”

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