Ashish Mishra: Jail Not Bail
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-04-21 15:48:08
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court order cancelling the bail of Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri case, has raised several important issues and has frowned upon the haste and the manner in which the Allahabad High Court took up and disposed the matter. Essentially, it faulted the high court for not recognizing the rights of the victims and not allowing them a "fair and effective" hearing during the bail application and for going into the merits of the case at the stage of bail application hearing.
While bail not jail is the guiding principle when bail applications come up for hearing, it is only true when the three major points are covered - namely, that the accused does not pose a flight risk, that he or she will cooperate in the investigation and that he or she will not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses if released on bail.
While Mishra would have met the first two points, there was a doubt whether, given his immense clout in the area, he would not threaten witnesses. This is where it was necessary for the high court to hear the victims who could have enlightened it about Mishra's hold and the mischief he could create if bail was granted. Instead, it accepted the UP government's submission that Mishra was unlikely to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses on face value. The Supreme Court cited Indian and international jurisprudence to establish that victims in a case have the right to be heard even during bail applications.
The Allahabad HC also erred in going into the merits of the case during the bail hearing which the Supreme Court said was "unnecessary for considering a bail plea". It had no business going into the sequence of events in the FIR or examining the evidence on merits during the bail plea hearing. The Supreme Court thought the high court overstepped its jurisdiction and also acted with undue haste in granting bail to Mishra and it made its displeasure evident in the observations while cancelling the bail and sending him back to jail.
