A Lakhimpur Kheri case witness was hurt in a “sudden altercation” that broke out after miscreants threw Holi colours on him, the Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court.
The State was responding to a plea made by the families of the farmers mowed down by an SUV in October 2021 that witness Diljot Singh was brutally attacked and threatened by his assailants in reference to the BJP’s win in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
“Some people were playing with Holi gulal near a school and threw it on Diljot Singh as well. He objected and an altercation broke out. One of the miscreants hit him with a belt and others kicked and punched him. None of the miscreants mentioned the ruling party winning the Assembly elections,” the State affidavit submitted.
‘Witnesses protected’
It said that every one of the witnesses is protected by an armed gunner and a personal security guard. CCTV cameras monitor continuously. So far, 98 victims have been provided security.
The families, represented by senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Prashant Bhushan, have also challenged the grant of bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Ajay Mishra Teni and prime accused in the case. The allegation is that Mr. Mishra was part of the group that rammed the vehicle into the farmers who were participating in a rally against the controversial farm laws in Lakhimpur Kheri.
The farmers stated that the government had not even bothered to challenge the grant of bail to him, forcing the families themselves to approach the top court for justice.
Countering, the government said it had “vehemently opposed” the bail before the Allahabad High Court. It was still not late for it to appeal the bail order. The option to go in appeal was under consideration.
‘Misguided’ one
Mr. Dave had argued before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana that the bail granted to Mr. Ashish Mishra was a “misguided” one. The bail order was passed despite the fact that the apex court took the gravity of incident into consideration while appointing a special investigation team, monitored by a retired High Court judge, for a time-bound probe of the case.
The families have argued that the decision of the High Court to grant bail to Mr. Mishra was erroneous and based on “totally extraneous reasons”.
The families have argued that Mr. Mishra was released on bail despite the heinous nature of the crime, the character of the overwhelming evidence against the accused in the charge sheet, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence and and the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice.
