The Supreme Court on March 16 ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to protect witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri case in which an SUV mowed down farmers participating in a rally protesting against the farm laws.
A Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana also issued notice to Uttar Pradesh in a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to Ashish Mishra, son of a Union Minister and prime accused in the case.
The court pulled up the State government when the farmers’ families, represented by senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Prashant Bhushan, informed that a witness was brutally attacked by a group which referred to the recent victory of the ruling BJP in the State Assembly poll and how it would turn out poorly for those who testify in the case.
“What is this? They [families] have brought up a specific incident in which a witness has been threatened... You have to file a detailed counter affidavit on this... You see to it that the witnesses are protected,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed the State government side.
The court posted the case for hearing on March 24.
Mr. Dave argued that the bail granted to Mr. Ashish Mishra was a “misguided” one. The order of bail was passed despite the fact that the Supreme Court took the gravity of incident into consideration while appointing a Special Investigation Team, monitored by a retired High Court judge, for a time-bound probe of the case.
“Bail was granted despite sufficient material on record to pin the accused,” Mr. Dave submitted.
He pointed out that the State did not even bother to file an appeal against the bail order of the High Court.
The families have argued that the decision of the Allahabad High Court to grant bail to Mr. Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Ajay Mishra Teni, was erroneous and based on “totally extraneous reasons”.
“All the considerations settled by the Supreme Court in law, like whether the accused can influence witnesses or tamper with evidence while out on bail, were ignored by the High Court,” Mr. Bhushan had submitted in court at an earlier occasion.
He had said that other accused in the case, encouraged by Mr. Ashish Mishra’s bail, were also seeking bail.
The families have argued that Mr. Ashish Mishra was released on bail despite the heinous nature of the crime, the character of the overwhelming evidence against the accused in the chargesheet, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence and the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice.
