UP govt opposes Lakhimpur Kheri violence accused Ashish Mishra’s bail plea: ‘Heinous crime which may impact society’

Four farm law protesters were killed when a convoy of vehicles, including one belonging to Ajay Mishra, ran over them on October 3, 2021. Two BJP workers, the driver of one of the vehicles and a journalist were also killed in the ensuing violence.

Appearing for Ashish Mishra, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said his client has been in custody for more than a year. He referred to the status report filed by trial court which said that there are about 208 witnesses in the case and the trial will take at least 5 years to complete.

Rohatgi said there are about 200 witnesses in the other FIR filed against the farmers, who allegedly indulged in violence. This would mean about 400 witnesses have to be examined analogously and this could well take 7 to 8 years, he added.

Contending that the right to speedy trial is a part of Article 21, the senior counsel said that records show that Mishra was not at the scene of the incident. He said it is not a case of murder but a case where a crowd turned violent and killed some people.

Rohatgi contended that it was the farmers who started it all by pelting stones on the Mahindra Thar – owned by Ajay Mishra – which then overturned and killed some in the crowd.

He said Jagjeet Singh, the complainant in the case against Ashish Mishra, was not an eyewitness and that Jaiswal, one of the passengers in the Thar, had given the eyewitness account, which is more trustworthy.

“It is a melee which happened. Some people in the car got killed, some farmers also,” said Rohatgi. There were no gunshot wounds, he said, adding that this disproved allegations that Mishra fired at the people.

“Strongly contesting the bail”, UP Additional Advocate General Prashad said 7 witnesses in the chargesheet had said they saw Mishra running away.

Justice Kant asked Prashad, “At this stage, we ask, what is your apprehension? Is it your case that he is likely to tamper with the evidence? Is it your case that he will flee?” Prashad responded: “That has not happened till now.”

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the victims’ families, referred to a 1986 judgment and said bail cannot be granted when trial court and the High Court have concurrently denied the relief.

The bench wondered whether he is trying to say that the top court has no power to grant bail even in cases where gross injustices have been done. “You cannot say the Supreme Court is mute spectator and you cannot curtail powers of a constitutional court. You cannot say the Supreme Court has no power because something has not been done,” said the bench.

Dave said it was a case of “cold-blooded murder” and added that he will show from the chargesheet that it was a pre-planned conspiracy. “They had a right to protest. The father of the accused kept saying that the protesters should be thrown out of the place. This is not a simple but extraordinary case,” he said.

The bench, however, said the father was not an accused in the case. Dave replied he, too, should have been made an accused.

On the argument that farmers indulged in arson leading to the overturning of the vehicle, Dave said: “If you run a car and run over 5 people, will not the people react in this country? It is a sudden and grave provocation. First a murder takes place and the crowd goes berserk. Even if in front of the Supreme Court some car causes an accident, hundreds of people will gather to thrash the car. That’s the reaction of society. People were so angry and agitated. I am not defending them. But look at the facts of this case independently.”

Dave expressed apprehension that the trial will not see the light of the day if Mishra is granted bail. “We know how powerful people influence the trial,” he said.

The bench said “we are not saying that he does not face serious charges” and added that the “impact of rejecting bail by this court will be that the High Court or sessions court will not grant bail either”.

Dave then referred to the case of Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan and said he has been languishing in jail for over 3 years.

Justice Kant then reminded him that he had authored the judgment in the 2021 case Union of India VS K A Najeeb granting bail to one of the accused booked under UAPA. Najeeb was accused in the 2010 case of chopping off the palm of a Kerala professor for alleged blasphemy.

Dave also cited Section 436A CrPC, which says that a person can be kept as undertrial for a period of one half of the maximum punishment and said that one year in custody was not a long period of incarceration in a murder case.

Justice Kant said he was also looking at the victims who cannot come to court. “There are farmers and poor people who are languishing in jail. How will they get relief if Ashish Mishra is denied bail,” he said.

Rohatgi denied the charge that it was not a cold blooded murder and said there was no pre-planning. “It is a case at best for Section 304 IP”, he said, adding there was no intention.

Reserving the verdict, the bench observed: “This is a case which requires further monitoring by the court and we will do it. Then we will keep this case pending till the witnesses are examined.”