Lakhimpur Kheri Case : Supreme Court Asks Witness To Approach Police With Complaint Of Intimidation

In the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case, the Supreme Court today granted liberty to a prosecution eye-witness, who was allegedly sought to be influenced against testifying, to file a complaint with the police authorities. The complaint shall be investigated "dispassionately and uninfluenced by the conclusions drawn earlier by the police in its status report", the Court said.

At the same time, the Court permitted accused-Ashish Mishra, son of ex-Union Minister Ajay Kumar Mishra, to visit his hometown-Lakhimpur Kheri between 5th to 7th April to be with his family on the Ram Navami festival. The permission was made subject to conditions already imposed on Mishra (as part of the bail order) as well as certain additional conditions.  

"Petitioner is permitted to visit his hometown of Lakhimpur Kheri on 5th April and celebrate Ram Navmi on 6th April strictly with his family members and close relatives. No political workers or public shall be associated with such celebrations. The petitioner shall be required to return to Lucknow on 7th April before 5 PM", the Court ordered.

To recap briefly, the case involves killing of five persons in October, 2021 in Lakhimpur Kheri, when vehicles of the convoy of Ashish Mishra allegedly ran over a group of farmers who were protesting against the farm laws. The case attracted political controversy as Mishra's father Ajay Kumar Mishra was then a Union Minister. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the incident and criticized the Uttar Pradesh police for its failure to arrest Ashish Mishra. He was later taken into arrest following the Court's criticism.

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.

Today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with an application filed by the family members of the deceased seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra alleging that he was trying to influence witness(es) in the case. Earlier, in the same application, the Court had asked Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into the allegations that Mishra attempted to influence witnesses in the case.

Taking note of the report placed on record, which did not lend credence to 2 out of 3 allegations levelled by the applicants, and the submissions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for the applicants), the Court passed its order giving permission to the witness allegedly sought to be influenced (Balwinder Singh) to file a complaint with the police authorities. Clarifying that it was not taking the allegation lightly, the Court said that the same shall be investigated by the authorities without being influenced by the conclusions already drawn in the report.

At the outset of the hearing, Bhushan drew the Court's attention to the audio clip relied upon by the applicants in support of their allegations that witness(es) in the case was sought to be influenced. The conversation reveals that the husband of a BJP functionary tried to influence a very important witness against appearing on the scheduled trial date, he said. The counsel alleged that even though the name of the witness was given to the police authorities, they claimed that the identify was not known and interviewed some other person.

"Tejender Singh is not the person who is in that conversation...in my letter, I had given the name...I had said audio conversation...[between] Amandeep Singh, husband of Mrs. Harpreet Kaur, block president of BJP of [...] district of Lakhimpur Kheri, who is a close associate of Mr. [...] and prosecution witness Mr. Baljinder Singh...this Baljinder Singh with whom the conversation happened is in Court today", Bhushan argued.

In response, the bench expressed that because of these things, it did not want the trial to be derailed and enquired the next date of hearing before the trial Court. When it was apprised that the next date fixed is 16 April, the bench impressed upon counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh that the prosecution revisit its list of witnesses sought to be examined and prioritize examination of key/vulnerable witnesses.

"Why do you have such a long list of witnesses? Why to have repeated witnesses? Public prosecutor can have kind of a scientific examination and then pruning of list...for one factual aspect, why to examine 3 witnesses? Unless you are doubtful that somebody has been influenced, won over, reluctant...then ofcourse you need a substitute...this has become a new trend...having 200, 300 witnesses...leading to an unending trial...", expressed Justice Kant.

Going through the report placed on record, the judge noted that as per the police authorities, the audio conversation had taken place between witness-Tejender Singh and an unidentified person, which was inconsequential as the said witness had already been examined/cross-examined. This was, however, countered by Bhushan, who claimed that the audio clip relied upon by the applicants pertained to close political associate of Mishra and eye-witness-Baljinder Singh.

Ultimately, the bench granted permission to witness-Baljinder Singh to make a complaint to the police authorities and noted that if any substance is found, the authorities shall submit a fresh status report. "We are only permitting the complainant to go there (to police authorities) and do it. In case he has some material, the police is also under duty to examine it. If something has happened, he too has a right to approach...we have to balance those rights", Justice Kant told Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (appearing for Mishra).

Dave, on his part, contended that the allegations were wholly baseless and meant for the media, to suggest that Mishra was interfering with the administration of justice. He assailed the fact that Mishra was the only accused removed from his hometown district and required to remain put in Lucknow. Referring to an application filed, the senior counsel also sought permission for Mishra to be with his family during the Ram Navmi festival and for his daughter's birthday.

Issuing notice on the said application, the Court granted Mishra permission to visit Lakhimpur Kheri between 5-7 April.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order