Ashish Mishra bail plea: Supreme Court seeks tentative timeline for conclusion of trial

The Supreme Court on Monday asked its registrar to ascertain from the Additional Sessions Judge at Lakhimpur Kheri as to how much time the trial in the case on Lakhmipur Kheri violence is likely to take for conclusion. .The direction was passed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari on a bail plea filed by Ashish Mishra, prime accused in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence in which 8 persons protesting Central government's farm laws were mowed down by a four-wheeler allegedly driven by Mishra. "The Registar (Judl.I) of this Court is directed to find out from the First Additioinal Sessions Judge at Lakhimpur, U.P. as to how much time in the normal course is likely to take to conclude the trial, without compromising with the schedule of other pending or prirotaized matters in the said Court. It is clarified that the First Additional Sessions Judge, shall not submit a tentative schedule/assessment on the assumption that this case is to be tried on out of turn basis," the Court directed. .The Court also asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an additional affidavit giving details about the progress and pace of investigation and proceedings on complaint by Mr Sumit Jaiswal..On October 3 last year, eight people were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri during violence that erupted when farmers were protesting against the now revoked farm laws. The protestors had impeded the visit of Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya, who planned to attend an event in the area. A four-wheeler belonging to Mishra allegedly mowed down and killed eight persons, including the protesting farmers.After he was arrested, the Uttar Pradesh Police's special investigation team (SIT) filed a 5,000-page chargesheet before a local court, naming Mishra as prime accused in the case. In November, a trial court had rejected his application for bail, prompting Mishra to move the High Court..The High Court had first granted bail to Mishra on February 10 this year, stating that there might have been a possibility that the driver of the vehicle that mowed down the protesting farmers sped up the vehicle to save himself.After the High Court granted bail to Mishra in the case, family members of the deceased had approached the Supreme Court in appeal, seeking cancellation of the bail. Oddly, the State of Uttar Pradesh did not file an appeal against the bail order.Then in April, the apex court had cancelled the bail granted to Mishra by the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. On July 26, the High Court denied Mishra bail, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The top court had sought the response of the UP government in the matter in September this year. .During the hearing today, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mishra, presented a case of alibi, maintaining that Mishra was not in the car which mowed down the protesters. "The fact that he was not in the car, no one died in firing is a matter of record. Photograph shows person in the car was one Sumit Jaiswal. Driver and one more in the car were pulled out and killed on the spot. SIT material shows all this. I was at the Akhada side near the jungle, which is held every year where my father, and the deputy CM also comes every year. It is not some alibi cooked up that I was in some hotel. I was not at the site," Rohatgi said.Rohatgi further said that the driver of the car panicked after stones were pelted at the car and that caused him to speed up leading to the accident. "He (driver) tried to run because stones were being thrown on the car. If you throw stones, someone will have to speed away. Nobody was killed by the bullet, I have a licensed gun," Rohatgi contended.He also pointed out that Mishra had already spent one year in jail after his arrest in 2021. .Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the family members of the deceased, said that as per precedents, in murder cases if trial court and High Court deny bail, then the Supreme Court should not ordinarily interfere. "1 year is not a long time for murder. Eight people were killed in cold blood. His father had said - 'will teach a lesson'. Witnesses are being attacked. These are powerful people. His route was changed on the last day. If someone can kill merely because they are agitating, then nobody is safe in a democracy!" Dave said..Dave also said that the Special Investigation Team probing the case has reconstructed the incident minute by minute. "In a case as heinous as murder and when two witnesses have already been attacked, they should not be released," Dave vehemently submitted.The State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) also opposed the plea stating that the crime is a heinous one."It is a serious offence. SIT has done an extensive job," Additional Advocate General for UP, Garima Prashad submitted.The bench, however, asked how long the accused can be kept in jail.It then proceeded to seek details of the the time frame within which the trial court be completed. The matter will be heard again next year after the Court reopens post winter vacation. .[Read order]