Supreme Court Refuses To Relax Ashish Mishra's Bail In Lakhimpur Kheri Case

Home / Top Stories Supreme Court Refuses To Relax Ashish Mishra's Bail In Lakhimpur Kheri Case X The Supreme Court refused to further relax Ashish Mishra's bail conditions in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case and asked that concerns over the trial be raised before the trial court The Supreme Court refused to further relax Ashish Mishra's bail conditions, held that concerns regarding crucial witnesses should first be raised before the trial court, and dismissed his plea seeking permission to attend family functions The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to further relax the bail conditions imposed on Ashish Mishra , one of the accused in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, holding that no case was made out for granting additional relief at this stage. The Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rejected Mishra's plea seeking relaxation of the conditions to enable him to attend family functions, including his daughters' birthday celebrations. "There is no ground to entertain this prayer at this stage... The application is dismissed," the CJI said. During the hearing, Mishra's counsel submitted that the existing bail conditions were causing undue hardship. "I am not even able to attend family functions, including my daughters' birthday celebrations," counsel for Mishra argued while pressing for a relaxation of the restrictions. The Bench, however, declined the request. The hearing also saw concerns being raised over the manner in which the trial is progressing. Appearing in the matter, Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that several crucial witnesses, including eyewitnesses, were being dropped because of the pace at which the trial was being conducted. "My Lord, one of the problems is the manner in which the trial is proceeding. Many of the critical witnesses have been given up because of the speed and haste with which the trial is being conducted. They are summoned for the very next day, and if they do not appear the next day, they are given up," Bhushan submitted. He informed the Court that he intended to file an application highlighting the alleged irregularities in the trial. The CJI, however, questioned why the Supreme Court should entertain such grievances in the first instance. "Why would we be the appropriate forum to entertain such an application? You should first approach the trial court itself and point out that these are the witnesses who are crucial, " the Bench observed. Bhushan further submitted that documents were being translated and sought a week's time. He also alleged that a person accused of attempting to influence a prosecution witness had been charge-sheeted, following which the intimidated witness was subsequently dropped. "In the meantime, one of his supporters was charge-sheeted for trying to influence a witness," Bhushan said. Mishra's counsel immediately objected, stating, "He is not my supporter." Bhushan further alleged that the witness had now moved an application seeking permission to participate in the trial. Responding, the CJI said the Court would consider that application separately but reiterated that any grievance regarding the dropping of witnesses must first be placed before the trial court. "We will take up that application. But you should move an application before the trial court. The trial court is the best forum to determine whether these witnesses are crucial. You may explain why those witnesses are important and what issues they relate to," the CJI observed. When Bhushan pointed out that some of the dropped witnesses were eyewitnesses, the Bench remarked, "That is all the more reason why the application should be made before the trial court." Bhushan thereafter sought a two-week adjournment, stating that the witness list had only recently been supplied. The Court, however, refused to interfere with Mishra's bail conditions while leaving it open to the parties to pursue their grievances regarding the conduct of the trial before the trial court. Uttar Pradesh police made this