The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government over a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra, son of union minister Ajay Mishra Teni, who had been arrested in connection with the death of four farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri district in October last year. Ashish Mishra had been given bail by the Allahabad High Court.
Ashish Mishra is the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri case – violence that broke out amid the height of farmers’ protest after four farmers were run down by a car allegedly driven by him. A total of eight people died – three BJP workers and a journalist were also killed in the violence that followed the farmers’ deaths.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana asked the state government to file a reply to the plea seeking cancellation of bail and directed that witnesses in the case be protected, after it took note of the submissions that one of them had been attacked.
The court was hearing a plea filed by family members of farmers killed in the violence. They are seeking a stay on the February 10 bail order, on grounds the verdict was ‘unsustainable in the eyes of law as there has been no meaningful and effective assistance by the state to the court in the matter’.
“The impugned order is unsustainable in eyes of law as there has been no meaningful and effective assistance by the State to the court in the matter contrary to the object of the first Proviso to Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that in grave offences notice of bail application should ordinarily be given to the Public Prosecutor,” the petitioners have said.
“Even the victims were prevented from bringing the relevant material as regards the settled principles for grant of bail to notice of High Court as their counsel ‘got’ disconnected from the hearing on January 18 this year before he could barely make any submissions and repeated calls to the court staff to get reconnected were to no avail and application filed by the victims/petitioners,” the petition added.
“Contrary to settled law, the High Court failed to form its opinion on the basis of the charge sheet on broad probabilities and has instead gone on the basis of far-fetched imaginary possibilities,” the petition said.