In a critical ruling underscoring the constitutional right to liberty, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to twelve individuals accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Krishan Pahal, reinforced the judicial principle that “bail is a rule, jail an exception,” while highlighting the prolonged pre-trial detention of the accused amid delays in trial proceedings.
The case, which has been ongoing since the violent events of October 3, 2021, revolves around a confrontation in Tikuniya, District Lakhimpur Kheri, where a group of protesting farmers was allegedly run over by a convoy of vehicles, reportedly linked to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra. The incident led to the death of four farmers and a journalist, sparking nationwide outrage and leading to criminal charges against multiple individuals. The prosecution’s case included serious charges under sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder (Section 302), criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B), and attempted murder (Section 307), along with sections of the Arms Act.
Background
In a detailed hearing, the court reviewed bail applications for twelve accused, including Nandan Singh Bisht, Latif Alias Kale, Satyam Tripathi, Shekhar Bharti, and Ashish Pandey, among others. Represented by a team of lawyers led by Sri Vaibhav Kalia, the defense argued that the applicants were not named in the original FIR and only appeared in witness testimonies during the investigation. They further argued that three individuals from the accused’s side also lost their lives in the altercation, asserting that it was unclear which party was the initial aggressor in the incident.
Court’s Observations and Rationale
Justice Krishan Pahal highlighted several factors in favor of granting bail:
1. Presumption of Innocence and Right to Liberty: Emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution, the court stated that the prolonged detention of the accused without a conclusive trial infringes upon their fundamental right to personal liberty. Referring to precedent cases, the court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment before conviction.
2. Lack of Direct Evidence in FIR: The court observed that the accused were not directly named in the FIR but were later identified through witness statements. This, combined with a lack of individual allegations or evidence of specific overt acts by the accused, weighed in favor of their bail applications.
3. Delay in Trial: With only seven out of 114 listed witnesses examined so far, the court expressed concern over the pace of the trial. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to main accused Ashish Mishra on similar grounds, the court reasoned that the bail applications for the co-accused should be viewed with the same considerations.
4. Principle of Uniformity in Justice: In a critical observation, Justice Pahal cited the Supreme Court’s stance that co-accused in similar circumstances should not face differential treatment. The court emphasized that maintaining consistency in judicial decisions is crucial to uphold the right to equality.
Significant Court Remarks
The court’s decision is replete with legal precedents supporting the principle of bail. Referring to landmark judgments, the court stated: “Bail is the rule, jail an exception,” adding that denying bail solely on the basis of pending charges without substantial evidence or likelihood of flight risk undermines the presumption of innocence.
Additionally, the court highlighted the Supreme Court’s viewpoint in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, where it was held that extended pre-trial detention, in the absence of an immediate trial, can justify bail despite the gravity of the charges.
Conditions for Bail
While granting bail, the High Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance. The accused are required to appear in person for key trial milestones, including the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements. The court warned that failure to comply would be grounds for cancellation of bail.
