Introduction:

On July 22, 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. This case involves the tragic killings of five individuals in October 2021, when vehicles from Mishra’s convoy allegedly ran over farmers protesting against controversial farm laws. Mishra’s initial bail was granted by the Allahabad High Court in February 2022 but was overturned by the Supreme Court in April 2022, citing a failure to consider critical factors. The case was then remanded to the High Court, which again denied bail.

Arguments of Both Sides:

During the recent proceedings, Mishra’s senior advocate Siddhartha Dave argued for the relaxation of bail conditions. Dave highlighted that Mishra’s father, Ajay Mishra, had lost his ministerial position, implying a reduced influence over the case. He also stressed that Mishra needed to care for his two daughters and claimed that the previous bail conditions, including staying away from Delhi, were unduly restrictive given his current situation. Dave proposed that Mishra be allowed to stay in Lucknow, a more feasible location compared to Delhi or the immediate vicinity.

In contrast, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the victims, argued against any relaxation. Bhushan pointed out the slow progress of the trial, noting that only seven out of 117 witnesses had been examined in 19 months. He asserted that Mishra’s continued bail might hinder the trial’s progress and delay justice. Bhushan’s plea underscored the need for effective prosecution and timely proceedings to ensure that justice is not compromised.

Court’s Judgement:

The Court, after considering the arguments, agreed to modify the bail conditions to a degree. It allowed Mishra to reside either in Delhi or Lucknow, addressing the practical issues raised by his counsel while maintaining restrictions to ensure he remains available for the trial. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for expediting the trial, directing the Trial Court to prioritize this case and ensure that witnesses are present as scheduled. The Court also instructed the public prosecutor and local police to facilitate the presence of witnesses and expedite proceedings. The Court acknowledged that influence might still be a factor despite the loss of Mishra’s father’s ministerial position but decided to balance the bail conditions to accommodate Mishra’s personal circumstances without undermining the trial process.