"There Is Cross-Version To The Present Case": Allahabad HC Grants Bail To 12 Accused In Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case

The Court noted that the accused’s case was stronger than that of Ashish Mishra, the prime accused, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court in July this year.

A Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal noted that the state had not presented any evidence indicating that the accused had previously attempted to evade the law or obstruct justice. The Court also noted that "There is cross-version to the present case, acknowledged by both parties.."

"It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA or the counsel for informant," the Court said.

The High Court took several factors into account while granting bail. One key consideration was the existence of conflicting versions of events surrounding the incident. Additionally, the Supreme Court had made the interim bail granted to four individuals involved in a cross-version of the case absolute. The Court also observed that many witnesses are yet to be examined, and there is no indication that the trial will conclude in the near future. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence suggesting that the applicants had abused their interim bail privileges in the past.

Among the accused given bail, eight accused were seeking bail for the first time, while four others had filed second bail pleas. The High Court combined all the pleas and heard them together.

The applicants argued that they were not named in the original FIR, and their involvement only emerged later through witness statements during the investigation. They contended that while four people from the informant's side were killed, including a journalist, three individuals from their own side also died in the violence. The defense argued that this raised questions about who the aggressors were in the incident.

The applicants also highlighted that Section 144 of the CrPC, which restricts unlawful assemblies, applied to both sides in the conflict, meaning that the farmers' procession could not be deemed entirely peaceful. Furthermore, the applicants pointed out the slow pace of the trial, with only seven out of 114 witnesses having been examined so far, suggesting that there was little likelihood of the trial concluding anytime soon. The defense heavily relied on the bail granted to Ashish Mishra by the Supreme Court, asserting that the same principles should apply to the co-accused.

The High Court said that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, and no substantial evidence had been presented that suggested the applicants would flee justice, interfere with the trial, or commit further offenses. Based on this reasoning, the Court granted bail to all 12 accused.

Cause Title: Nandan Singh Bisht & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2024:AHC-LKO:74354]

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates Vaibhav Kalia, Salil Kumar Srivastava, and Manish Mani Sharma,

Respondents: Advocates Ajai Kumar, Vivek Kumar Rai and Parul Kant