Lakhimpur Violence: SC Reserves Order On Ashish Mishra's Bail Plea As UP Govt Says 'Alleged Offences Grave In Nature'
The apex court today heard the Ashish Mishra's bail plea where the Uttar Pradesh government opposed his bail plea saying the “offences were grave in nature”.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday reserved its order on a plea by Lakhimpur violence accused, Ashish Mishra challenging judgment by Allahabad High Court which had rejected his bail plea, reported news agency PTI. The apex court today heard the matter where the Uttar Pradesh government opposed his bail plea saying the “offences were grave in nature”.
On October 3, 2021, eight people were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri district's Tikunia in a violence that erupted when farmers were protesting the then Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the area.
According to the Uttar Pradesh Police FIR, four farmers were mowed down by an SUV, in which Ashish Mishra was seated. Following the incident, a driver and two BJP workers were allegedly lynched by angry farmers. A journalist also died in the violence.
"It is a grave and heinous crime and (granting bail) will send a wrong signal to society," Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh Garima Prashad told a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J K Maheshwari while opposing Mishra’s bail plea, the PTI report stated
The top court said about the grave and heinous crime there are two versions and it cannot comment on any of the versions.
"We are taking prima facie view that he is involved and he is an accused and not innocent. Is it the state's case that he has attempted to destroy evidence?" the bench asked.
To this, the additional advocate general replied, "That has not happened till now." Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for those opposing the bail plea, said grant of bail will send a terrible message to society. "It's a conspiracy and a well-planned murder. I will show from the charge sheet... He is the son of a powerful man being represented by a powerful lawyer," he said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mishra, strongly opposed Dave's submission and said, "What is this? Who is powerful? We are appearing every day. Can this be a condition to not grant bail?" Rohatgi submitted that his client has been in custody for more than a year and the way the trial is going, it will take seven to eight years to complete it. He stated that Jagjeet Singh, who is the complainant in the case, is not an eyewitness and his complaint is just based on hearsay.
"Jagjit Singh is the complainant and he is not an eyewitness. I am surprised that when there is a large number of people saying we ran over people mercilessly, an FIR is registered on the version of a person who is not an eyewitness?" he said.
"My client got bail in the first instance. This is not a cock and bull story and there is truth in my story," Rohatgi said, adding that his client is not a criminal and there are no past records.
(with inputs from PTI)
Top Headlines
