Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Ashish Mishra @ Monu, the main accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case of October 3, 2021, where eight persons were killed and several injured when vehicles drove into a crowd of protesting farmers. The Court held that the High Court had overlooked relevant considerations and granted bail on erroneous grounds, including the absence of firearm injuries and characterizing the incident as an accident. The Court emphasized that a victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. has a right to be heard in bail proceedings, and that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused as the main perpetrator, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The Court also noted that the High Court had not heard the victims' counsel properly. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, while clarifying that the trial court could consider bail afresh if circumstances change. The judgment reaffirms the principles for grant of bail in heinous offences and the victim's participatory rights in criminal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Victim's Right to be Heard - Section 2(wa), 439 Cr.P.C. - Victim defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. has a right to be heard at the stage of bail adjudication - The court held that the victim is not a mute spectator and must be afforded an opportunity of hearing, especially in cases involving grave offences and multiple casualties (Paras 16-23). B) Criminal Law - Bail in Heinous Offences - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, 34, 120B IPC, Sections 3, 25, 30 Arms Act - Principles for grant of bail in cases involving murder and attempt to murder - The court held that the High Court erred by overlooking the gravity of the offence, the role of the accused as the main perpetrator, and the possibility of tampering with evidence - Bail granted on erroneous grounds such as absence of firearm injuries and characterization of the incident as an accident (Paras 24-30). C) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. - Interference by Supreme Court - The court held that the impugned bail order was passed in a mechanical manner with non-application of mind, rendering it illegal and liable to be set aside - The order was set aside and the accused was directed to surrender (Paras 31-33).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application; Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations while granting bail; Whether the impugned bail order is palpably illegal and warrants interference.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned bail order dated 10.02.2022, and directed the respondent-accused to surrender within two weeks. The Court clarified that the trial court may consider bail afresh if circumstances change.
Law Points
- Victim's right to be heard in bail proceedings
- Principles for grant of bail in heinous offences
- Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. definition of victim
- Section 439 Cr.P.C. bail considerations
- Relevance of firearm injuries in murder cases
