Ashish Mishra bail plea: Supreme Court says there can't be indefinite incarceration; Dushyant Dave says it should apply to all uniformly

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in the plea for bail filed by Ashish Mishra, son of Union Home Minister of State Ajay Mishra, in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri case in which 8 persons protesting against the Farm laws were mowed down by a four-wheeler belonging to Mishra [Ashish Mishra @ Monu vs State of Uttar Pradesh]..During the hearing today, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari said that the trial in the case might take 5 years to conclude and there cannot be indefinite incarceration of the accused."It is about balancing rights of parties. There should not be indefinite incarceration," the bench said.Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for one of the complainants, responded by saying that the same should then apply uniformly to all accused including those who are in jail in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots."Let there be a consistent law then. Delhi riots accused are languishing in jail till now milord," Dave said.Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mishra, made a strong plea for bail on the ground of alibi. He said that Mishra was not present in the car or at the spot where the incident took place.Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prashad, appearing for the UP government, vehemently opposed grant of bail citing the heinous nature of the offence.The Court after hearing all parties reserved its verdict..Background.On October 3, 2021, 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 vehicle belonging to and allegedly being driven by Mishra mowed down protesting farmers, among others.After he was arrested, the Uttar Pradesh Police's special investigation team (SIT) filed a 5,000-page charge-sheet before a local court, naming Mishra prime accused in the case. In November that year, 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, 2022, 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 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.In April 2022, the apex court cancelled the bail granted to Mishra by the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. On July 26 last year, the High Court denied Mishra bail, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court..Meanwhile, the trial court in Uttar Pradesh framed murder charges against Mishra in December 2022.The charges were framed under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 149 (offence committed in prosecution of common object), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 427 (mischief causing damage), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act..Arguments today.During the hearing today, Mishra's counsel Mukul Rohatgi said that Mishra was not present in the car or at the spot where the incident took place."Call records show that Ashish Mishra was 4 kilometers way from the site. This is not a case of murder but a case where crowd turned violent and the crowd killed some people. Our people were killed and some farmers were killed. There are no gunshot wound and no fire," Rohatgi submitted.He contended that his version is not a cock and bull story."My client got bail in the first instance. This is not a cock and bull story and there is truth in my story. I am not a criminal and there are no past records," Rohatgi said.Rohatgi also said that if bail is not granted Mishra could be behind bars for 5 to 8 years. "He has been in custody for more than a year. There are about 208 witnesses against me and trial court said 5 years will be taken if no priority is given. In one 219 FIR, there are 200 witnesses and in another FIR there are 198 witnesses. 400 witnesses to be examined analogously... this could well become 7 to 8 years," he said.AAG Garima Prashad strenuously objected to grant of bail."Is it the State's case that he has attempted to destroy evidence etc," the bench asked the AAG."That has not happened till now," the AAG replied."Then what is your opposition," the bench persisted."It is a grave heinous crime which may impact the society adversely," the AAG said."Regarding grave and heinous there are two versions and we cannot comment on any of the versions," the bench said.It then asked the Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for the complainant, regarding his objections."It will send a terrible message if this person is granted bail. We don't know any other murder trial where trial is over before 5 years," Dave said."You cannot say Supreme Court is mute spectator and you cannot curtail powers of a constitutional court. You cannot says Supreme Court has no power because something has not been done," the Court remarked."It was a cold blooded murder and there was a conspiracy, I can show that. If you run a car on the crowd and kill 5 people, will the crowd not react. People were enraged that 5 were killed when a car ran over people in a 10 feet road," Dave said on allegations that the crowd had turned violent and killed persons in the car.Dave also pointed out that Mishra's father is a powerful man and a Union minister."With my 44 years experience at the bar, I can assure the court that if Ashish Mishra is granted bail, this trial will never see the light of the day and we know how powerful people influence the trial," he said.It also depends on how order is made and what conditions are put, the bench said.Dave also said that the State government was initially not keen on proceeding with the case which had led to constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) by the apex court."State was lukewarm in proceeding initially and this court ordered the SIT and it has found enough evidence to show that he is involved in this heinous crime and that is why cannot be granted bail," Dave contended."Speedy trial is today a part of Article 21. This man is not a danger to the society. Where is the reason today to say that I should be denied bail? If conditions are violated then bail can be canceled," Rohatgi said..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing].[Read order]