The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the complainant two weeks’ time to respond to the Uttar Pradesh Police’s status report concluding that no evidence was found against Ashish Mishra and former Union Minister Ajay Mishra in the witness intimidation FIR linked to the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The Court observed that since a chargesheet had already been filed in the intimidation case, any grievance against it would have to be pursued before the jurisdictional Magistrate, not before the Supreme Court.
“
“Once the chargesheet is filed, if they have some remedies, they have to do it before the Magistrate. It can’t be done here. Why are you advising them in advance? We just don’t want to mention time and again about the trial.”
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a case arising from the FIR alleging witness intimidation was registered pursuant to earlier directions of the Supreme Court after a witness alleged that he had been threatened to withdraw his statement in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The principal case relates to the 3 October 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence, in which eight persons, including four farmers, were killed after vehicles in a convoy allegedly linked to Ashish Mishra ran over protesting farmers. Ashish Mishra continues to remain on bail granted by the Supreme Court.
The State informed the Court that the investigation into the FIR alleging witness intimidation had been completed and that no material had been found implicating Ashish Mishra, Ajay Mishra or the other persons named in the complaint. The status report stated that a chargesheet had been filed against one Amandeep Singh, while the allegations against the remaining persons were found to be unsubstantiated.
During the hearing, the Bench granted the complainant two weeks to respond to the status report. The Bench also reviewed the progress of the trial in the main Lakhimpur Kheri case. The State informed the Court that 10 witnesses had been examined in the past three months, leaving 62 witnesses yet to be examined. According to the prosecution, all eyewitnesses have already been examined, and the remaining witnesses are largely formal in nature.
The State further informed the Court that the trial court had expedited the proceedings by issuing non-bailable warrants to secure the presence of witnesses and expressed hope that the recording of prosecution evidence would be completed in about three months.
Taking note of the submission, the Bench indicated that the matter could be taken up again in October.