SC Orders DSP-Level Probe into Witness Intimidation FIR Against Ashish Mishra in Lakhimpur Kheri Case

New Delhi – In a significant development in the sensitive Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, the Supreme Court has directed that the investigation into a newly registered First Information Report (FIR) for witness intimidation against prime accused Ashish Mishra and his father, former Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni, be conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The Court's order came after the Uttar Pradesh government confirmed that a witness's complaint of threats had "some substance," leading to the registration of the FIR.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Baghchi was hearing the matter of Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. , where it is periodically monitoring the trial's progress. The State counsel informed the bench that after prolonged inaction, which had previously drawn the Court's ire, a DSP was deputed to Punjab to record the statement of the complainant-witness, Baljinder Singh. "We deputed a Deputy Secretary, who recorded his (witness) statement and he verified that there was some kind of pressure on him," the counsel submitted, confirming the registration of an FIR under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench, taking note of the gravity of the allegations and the preliminary steps taken, directed that to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, a senior officer must handle the probe. The Court recorded in its order, "...it would be prudent for the FIR to be investigated by the same officer and/or an officer of that rank." The Uttar Pradesh police were further instructed to submit a status report on the investigation at the next hearing.

The Intimidation Allegations and Judicial Intervention

The issue of witness intimidation has cast a long shadow over the trial. The matter came to the forefront when witness Baljinder Singh approached the apex court alleging he had received threatening calls warning him not to depose in the case. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the complainants, had highlighted in previous hearings that despite a written complaint filed in June, the UP Police had failed to register an FIR, citing the witness's unavailability to appear in person at the police station.

This explanation was deemed "unsatisfactory" by the Supreme Court in August, when it sharply criticized the police for their inaction and directed that a senior officer personally visit the complainant to verify the allegations. The subsequent confirmation by the witness and registration of the FIR against Ashish Mishra, his father, and two others is a direct consequence of the Court's stringent oversight. The state also informed the Court that armed police protection has now been provided to the witness and his family.

Trial Progress and the Court's Stance on Expedition

During the hearing, the bench was apprised of the status of the main trial. The prosecution has examined 23 witnesses so far, with 9 having been dropped and 2 remaining unserved. The total number of prosecution witnesses has been revised from 208 to 131, a move previously suggested by the Court to streamline the process. However, with 99 witnesses still to be examined, Advocate Bhushan pressed for the trial to be expedited.

"This is a serious case. The trial should be conducted expeditiously. It should not meet the same fate as several other important trials in the country," Bhushan argued, requesting a direction for the trial to be held more frequently, such as twice a week.

However, the bench, particularly Justice Surya Kant, expressed reluctance to issue such a specific directive. Justice Kant observed that such an order could be construed as "direct monitoring of the trial by this court" and might inadvertently cause inconvenience to witnesses or disrupt the trial court's schedule, which is burdened with other cases. This judicial restraint underscores the delicate balance the apex court seeks to maintain between ensuring timely justice in high-profile cases and respecting the autonomy of trial courts.

Bail Conditions and Temporary Relief for the Accused

Concurrent to these developments, the Supreme Court granted a request from Ashish Mishra, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, to visit his hometown of Lakhimpur Kheri for the Diwali festival. The bench permitted the visit, recording his undertaking to return by October 22.

This permission, however, is not a blanket relaxation. The Court explicitly ordered that the stringent conditions imposed in its March 24, 2025 order—when Mishra was allowed a similar visit for Ram Navami—would remain in full force. These conditions typically include prohibitions on participating in public or political activities and meeting with anyone other than close family.

Mishra's bail journey has been tumultuous. Initially granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in February 2022, the order was set aside by the Supreme Court in April 2022 for considering "irrelevant factors." He was later granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in January 2023 with strict conditions, including a bar on entering Uttar Pradesh, which was later modified to allow him to stay in Delhi or Lucknow. The latest FIR for witness intimidation may have significant implications for his bail status in future proceedings, as any attempt to influence witnesses is a direct violation of bail conditions.

Background and Broader Implications for the Justice System

The Lakhimpur Kheri violence on October 3, 2021, which resulted in the deaths of eight people, including four farmers mowed down by a vehicle in Mishra’s convoy, remains a focal point of legal and public scrutiny. The case tests the criminal justice system's ability to conduct a fair trial when faced with powerful and politically connected accused.

The Supreme Court’s proactive role, from its initial suo motu cognizance and criticism of the police for delaying Mishra's arrest to its current micro-management of witness protection and trial monitoring, serves as a crucial check on the executive and investigative machinery. The latest order for a DSP-level probe into witness tampering allegations reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of the trial process, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done, free from fear or favour.