The Supreme Court today seeks a response from Ashish Mishra, the son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, regarding allegations that he threatened witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

The incident, which occurred in October 2021, involved vehicles from his convoy allegedly running over a group of farmers protesting against the farm laws, resulting in the deaths of five individuals.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the order after considering an application that accused Ashish Mishra of threatening witnesses in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Ashish Mishra, denied the allegations, arguing that such applications are filed not for the Court’s consideration but for external purposes. He further asserted that the individual shown in the photographs submitted as evidence was not Mishra.

However, Justice Kant stated that Ashish Mishra would need to formally respond to the allegations by filing an affidavit.

On February 10, 2022, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, but this decision was overturned by a Supreme Court bench comprising then CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohli in April 2022. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had considered irrelevant factors while overlooking important ones. The bail application was subsequently remanded back to the High Court. This order followed an appeal filed by the relatives of the farmers who were killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri incident.

After re-hearing the matter, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Ashish Mishra's bail application.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court granted Ashish Mishra interim bail for a period of 8 weeks, which was subsequently extended multiple times. The order included several conditions, and the interim bail was later made absolute. The Court allowed Mishra to stay in either Delhi or Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, and directed him to comply with the additional terms and conditions specified in the 2023 order.

The Court underlined the need for expediting trial and called for a status report from the Trial Court. “We direct the Trial Court to fix the schedule, keeping in view the other time-bound or urgent matters that are pending but prioritising the subject trial. The Public prosecutor shall inform the Trial Court of the witnesses (not less than 5) who shall be produced on the date fixed. The State shall ensure that all witnesses shall remain present.”

Case Title: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022