A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh
Introduction
The Lakhimpur Kheri case pertains to the killing of five people in October 2021, when vehicles from a convoy allegedly led by Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Kumar Mishra, ran over protesting farmers. The case has been highly controversial, with allegations of political influence and intimidation of witnesses. The Supreme Court has been actively monitoring the case and has recently passed an order concerning allegations of witness intimidation and granting limited permission for Mishra’s visit to his hometown for Ram Navami.
Facts
On October 3, 2021, in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, a convoy allegedly associated with Ashish Mishra ran over protesting farmers, resulting in five deaths. Due to the political nature of the case, there was significant public outcry, and the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance. Mishra was arrested after severe criticism from the Supreme Court regarding the slow action of the Uttar Pradesh police. In January 2023, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail, which was later extended and eventually made absolute. Mishra was permitted to reside in either Delhi or Lucknow but was restricted from entering Lakhimpur Kheri. Recently, allegations surfaced that Mishra was attempting to influence witnesses, leading to an application for cancellation of his bail.
Issues
- Whether the allegations of witness intimidation against Ashish Mishra warranted cancellation of his bail.
- Whether Mishra should be allowed to visit Lakhimpur Kheri for the Ram Navami festival.
- Whether the prosecution was effectively prioritizing key witnesses to ensure a fair and speedy trial.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Mishra was allegedly trying to influence key prosecution witnesses, particularly Baljinder Singh. A BJP functionary’s husband was reportedly involved in persuading a witness not to testify. The police, despite being provided with the name of the witness, interviewed a different person and downplayed the allegations. The petitioner sought the cancellation of Mishra’s bail due to his alleged interference with the judicial process.
5. Contentions of the Respondent
The allegations of witness intimidation were baseless and intended for media sensationalism. The police inquiry found no substantial evidence to support 2 out of the 3 allegations made by the petitioner. Mishra had not violated any bail conditions and had been abiding by the restrictions imposed by the Court. He should be allowed to visit Lakhimpur Kheri to celebrate Ram Navami with his family.
6. Court’s Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and granted permission to witness Baljinder Singh to file a police complaint. It directed the police to investigate the complaint "dispassionately and uninfluenced" by prior conclusions. The Court expressed concern over the prolonged trial due to an unnecessarily long list of witnesses and advised the prosecution to prioritize key witnesses. It emphasized balancing the rights of both parties—ensuring witness protection while not unfairly restricting Mishra.
The Court allowed Ashish Mishra to visit Lakhimpur Kheri between April 5-7, 2025, subject to conditions:
- He can only celebrate with family and close relatives.
- No political gatherings or public events should be associated with his visit.
- He must return to Lucknow by April 7, 5 PM.
Witness Baljinder Singh was granted the liberty to file a police complaint regarding alleged intimidation, and the police were directed to investigate the matter afresh.
The Supreme Court stressed that the trial should not be derailed and directed the prosecution to streamline its witness list to avoid unnecessary delays.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's order balances concerns over witness intimidation with Mishra’s right to bail. While permitting Mishra a limited visit to Lakhimpur Kheri, the Court also ensured that witness allegations were properly investigated, reflecting a careful approach toward justice in a politically sensitive case.
