[Lakhimpur Kheri] Problem of media trial multiplied by toolkits; media running Kangaroo courts: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, while denying bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, said that the problem of media trial was amplified on electronic and social media, especially through the use of tool kits [Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of UP]..Justice Krishan Pahal opined that a media trial, apart from taking up the investigation on its own, also leads to forming public opinion against a suspect even before the court takes cognizance of the offence. The order stated,"Now the problem has been multiplied by the electronic and social media especially with the use of tool kits. At various stages and forums, it has been seen that ill-informed and agenda driven debates are being undertaken by media running Kangaroo Courts.".It was noted that while the media had an indispensable role in highlighting matters pertaining to public utility at large, sometimes individual views were overshadowing news and having an adverse effect on the truth.“Of late, media is seen overstepping upon the sanctity of judiciary in high profile criminal cases, as was evident in the cases of Jessica Lal, Indrani Mukherjee and Aarushi Talwar etc,” the Court further noted..While deciding the bail application, the Court took into account the three vehicles at the spot of the incident, from one of which, Mishra was seen coming out.This was found to be a crucial circumstance weighing against Mishra, particularly since the Mahindra Thar vehicle was registered in his father’s name, even though he was not seen driving it..Therefore, considering all the factors, it was concluded that the case was not fit for bail.“Taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, there being apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, after taking due consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the settled case law of Alister Anthony Pareira (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.”.Mishra's arguments.Mishra was the main accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence of 2021, in which 8 people were killed after being allegedly mowed down by his vehicle.Before the High Court, Mishra argued that there was a cross version in the case, and therefore he was entitled to bail. Further, the version of the prosecution regarding the firing was cooked up and concocted, he claimed. Additionally, the rejected bail applications of the co-accused were argued to have no bearing on the case since Mishra was not a party in that case.It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the case of the prosecution was later modified from being that of gunshot injuries to that of injuries due to crushing by vehicles.With regard to the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the time, it was stated that the agitating farmers had flouted the proclamation and the procession could not be termed as peaceful..Case of the victim and prosecution.The victim’s counsel emphasised that Mishra was the mastermind of the crime and was the main accused person to whom the lead role was assigned. It was stated that he was the only named accused in the First Information Report (FIR).It was highlighted that the rejection of bail to the co-accused may be considered in light of propriety and consistency in judicial approach, since the current applicant’s role was much more prominent than the co-accused in the case.The State argued that the autopsy report corroborated the modus operandi of Mishra and other accused, as five innocent people were put to death in a brutal, barbaric and gruesome manner.Moreover, the State shed light on the assault of two witnesses despite protection provided to all witnesses in the case by the State government..On hearing all parties, Justice Pahal recorded that had both parties observed a bit of restraint, we would not have seen the loss of eight invaluable human lives.Deciding on the case, the Court considered that the proclamation under Section 144 of the CrPC was equally applicable to Mishra and his associates, and the agitating farmers. However, neither had followed it.Considering all the factors, the Court refused to grant bail to Ashish Mishra..The Supreme Court had in April cancelled the bail previously granted to Mishra by the High Court and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.This was done after the victims of the crime (family members of the deceased) moved the apex court claiming that they were denied the chance of an effective hearing before the Allahabad High Court..Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi assisted by Advocates Salil Kumar Srivastava, BM Sahai, Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi and Rahul Srivastava appeared for Mishra.Advocate Amarjeet Singh Rakhra assisted by Advocates Shashank Singh, Vivek Rai and Anumita Chandra appeared for one of the victims.Advocate Jagjeet Singh and Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi assisted by Additional Government Advocate Prachish Pandey represented the State..[Read Order]