The Supreme Court confronted the Uttar Pradesh government on Wednesday, claiming that the retired judge appointed by the court to oversee the investigation into the Lakhimpur Kheri case had urged the state to appeal against the bail granted to prime accused Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister.
The State, on the other hand, has not taken the Allahabad High Court’s bail ruling to the Supreme Court.
Instead, the families of the farmers killed in Lakhimpur Kheri had to petition the Supreme Court for the bail to be revoked.
On March 30, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana addressed the U.P. side, saying, “It appears from the report submitted by the monitoring judge that he had recommended the cancellation of bail… He had requested [you] to file an SLP [Special Leave Petition] seeking cancellation of the bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court.”
The State’s senior lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani, said he had “no clue of this proposal” made by the monitoring judge.
Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, was selected as the probe’s monitoring judge to “guarantee transparency, fairness, and ultimate impartiality.” The nomination of the retired judge was made to ensure “full and complete justice to the victims of crime.”
SIT reports have been sent out
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant, who was also on the Bench alongside Justice Hima Kohli, revealed to Mr. Jethmalani that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) delivered two reports to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) in the State government on February 10 and February 14.
Mr. Jethmalani later informed the court that it appeared the Additional Chief Secretary had not received these letters after enquiring. The Court ordered that copies of the reports be delivered to the State as well as the farmers’ relatives.
Supreme court confronted UP government
For the petitioners, senior attorney Dushyant Dave urged the Bench not to delay any longer. In its counter affidavit before the Supreme Court, the government expressed its opposition to the High Court’s grant of bail to the Union Minister’s son.
The state of Uttar Pradesh claimed in its counter-affidavit that it had “vehemently opposed” the bail request in the High Court. It said that the farmers’ families’ argument in the apex court that the government did not “effectively” oppose the issuance of bail was “untrue.”
“So, if the State opposes the release… the High Court order should stand, and the bail should be rescinded,” Mr. Dave said vehemently. He also alluded to an earlier counter-affidavit submitted by the State before the High Court, in which the State argued that the accused’s claim of “alibi” was “completely false.” The accused was “seated in his Fortuner car with anti-social elements who were armed with dangerous weapons at the location of occurrence, and the same has been corroborated by a multitude of eyewitnesses,” according to the affidavit.
On April 4, there will be a hearing
On April 4, the Supreme court will hear the case on the issue of bail cancellation. In this case, the SIT has already issued long charge sheets. The court made sure that the SIT was made up of directly recruited IPS officers with no ties to Uttar Pradesh, such as S.B. Shiradkar, Padmaja Chauhan, and Dr. Preetinder Singh, to avoid any “lingering suspicion in respect of the fairness and independence of the investigation and preserve the people’s faith and trust in the administration of the criminal justice system.”