Lakhimpur Kheri case | Supreme Court to rule on plea against Ashish Mishra bail on April 18

Families of Lakhimpur Kheri victims had challenged relief to Minister’s son

The Supreme Court will on Monday pronounce its decision in a plea challenging the grant of bail to Ashish Mishra, prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri case and the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra.

The Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana will include Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

The court’s decision would be based on pleas by the bereaved families of farmers who were killed when a vehicle allegedly ran over them. The farmers were protesting the controversial agricultural laws at the time of the incident.

Ashish Mishra was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.

One of the key questions which the apex court posed during the hearings was why the State of Uttar Pradesh did not appeal the bail in the apex court. In fact, it had come out during the hearings that the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team and the retired High court judge monitoring the probe had recommended to the State to file an appeal against the bail order of the High Court under the apprehension that Mishra was influential and could tamper with the evidence or “influence witnesses” while outside prison.

“The question is why did you (Uttar Pradesh) not challenge the bail? You knew the circumstances under which we formed the SIT and requested a retired judge of the Punjab and High Court to monitor the investigation... You yourself admitted the offence is very serious. You say you vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused in the High Court... So we expected you to have acted on the suggestion of the SIT and the monitoring judge to appeal against the bail... You did not...” Chief Justice Ramana had addressed the State, represented by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani.

Mr. Jethmalani had agreed the offence alleged — the crushing to death of farmers and a journalist — was indeed “grave”. But he argued that the State had already addressed this apprehension by providing witnesses with “extensive security”. He said there had been no “untoward incidents”.