Ashish Mishra Not a Flight Risk, Unlikely to Tamper With Evidence, UP Govt Tells Supreme Court
4 April, 2022 | Pragati Singh
The state government told the court that "no words are enough" to condemn it. It also argued that it had "vehemently" opposed the bail in the high court
The Supreme Court on Monday, April 4th, reserved its decision on a plea seeking to have Ashish Mishra’s bail in the Lakhimpur Kheri case revoked.
The Uttar Pradesh government counsel Mahesh Jethmalani arguing against the appeal said, “There can’t be a mini-trial at this stage. No words can be enough to convey what happened… As for tampering with evidence, we have provided security. Is he a flight risk? He is not.”
The UP party’s stance remained unchanged, according to Jethmalani, who stated that “no words are enough” to condemn the crime and that it has “vehemently” opposed the bail before the high court.
However, Jethmalani stated that the witnesses are not in any danger from Ashish Mishra since they have been given strong protection.
According to Bar and Bench, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who is representing the Uttar Pradesh government, claimed that the state has provided substantial protection to all 97 witnesses.
Following that, CJI Ramana asked Jethmalani to express the state’s position on the bail request, whether it supported or opposed it. “You indicated you were against bail the last time we asked,” the CJI observed. “Yes, we are adamantly opposed,” Jethmalani stated. “We are not pressuring you (the State of UP) to file an SLP. “However, what is your position?” the CJI inquired.
According to Jethmalani, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the matter had advised the state to appeal the Allahabad High Court’s decision, but the request was ignored by the administration.
In a special petition filed by the family members of the farmers who got killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri crime challenging the bail granted to Ashish Mishra, by the Allahabad High Court, Supreme Court had on 1st April told the State of Uttar Pradesh that the judge appointed to monitor the Special Investigation Team has recommended that the state should file an appeal challenging it.