Supreme Court Seeks Response from Ashish Mishra on Allegations of Intimidation of Witnesses

The Supreme Court today sought the response of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra’s son Ashish Mishra on allegations that he threatened witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case regarding the killing of 5 people in October 2021, when vehicles in his convoy allegedly ran over a group. Farmers protesting against farm laws.

a bench Judges Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan It considered the application filed alleging that Mishra had threatened the witnesses in the case and approved the decision.

Senior Advocate Siddharth DaveAppearing on behalf of Mishra, he denied the allegations whenever approached. “Not for the court, but for those outside”. The senior lawyer also claimed that Mishra is not the person seen in the photographs added to support the claim.

However, Justice Kant stated that Mishra will officially respond to the allegations by submitting an affidavit.

Background

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Mishra on February 10, 2022. put aside In April 2022, by a Supreme Court bench comprising then CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, after stating that the Supreme Court had taken into account irrelevant aspects and ignored relevant factors. Later, the bail application was sent to the High Court. The Supreme Court’s decision came upon the objection made by the relatives of the farmers who lost their lives in the incident.

After reconsidering the issue, the Supreme Court dismissed application for bail.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court granted 8-week interim bail to Mishra, which was extended from time to time. The order came with a number of conditions. Interim bail decision was given later made absolute. The court allowed Mishra to stay in Delhi or Lucknow, UP. He was also asked to comply with other terms and conditions set out in the 2023 order.

inside order Making provisional bail absolute, the Court underlined the need to speed up the trial and requested a status report from the Supreme Court. “We direct the Trial Court to adjust the schedule taking into account other time-bound or urgent matters that are pending but give priority to the hearing in question. The public prosecutor notifies the Supreme Court of the witnesses (at least 5) who will be testified on the determined date. “The State will ensure that all witnesses are present.”

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias ​​Monu – UP SLP(Crl) No. Status 7857/2022