Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely Due to Case Gravity: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case

"Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 rights," says Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court, in a landmark ruling, granted bail to 12 applicants involved in the politically sensitive Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The court, presided by Justice Krishan Pahal, underscored the importance of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and found no grounds to continue withholding bail despite the gravity of allegations.
The case pertained to violent clashes during a protest in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, in October 2021, which resulted in the deaths of eight people, including farmers, a journalist, and others. The bail applications were consolidated under Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1538 of 2023, along with related bail pleas.
The applicants faced charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, 427, and 120-B of the IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act, and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act for their alleged involvement in mob violence. The FIR alleged that the primary accused, Ashish Mishra, and others drove vehicles into a crowd of protesting farmers, leading to multiple casualties.
The defense argued that the applicants were not named in the initial FIR and were implicated later during investigations. Additionally, a cross-version FIR filed by the applicants' side alleged fatalities and injuries among their group due to mob violence by protestors.
The court noted that only 7 out of 114 witnesses had been examined in three years, indicating a protracted trial. Citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the court stated:
“Prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of trial concluding soon constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.”
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied merely because the case is politically sensitive or involves serious allegations.
The applicants were not named in the original FIR, and their roles emerged later through witness statements. Importantly, the Supreme Court had already granted bail to the primary accused, Ashish Mishra, placing the applicants on better footing. The court ruled:
"Bail cannot be denied solely on the existence of criminal antecedents if adequately explained. Each case must be adjudged on its individual merits."
The court acknowledged the existence of a cross-version FIR, alleging fatalities and injuries on both sides. It observed:
"At this stage, it is not clear which party was the aggressor. The presence of cross-versions weakens the prosecution's exclusive reliance on its narrative."
Reiterating the principles established in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the court emphasized:
"The purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial. Personal liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely without valid cause."
This judgment reinforces key principles of criminal jurisprudence:
Speedy trial is integral to the right to liberty under Article 21.
Bail is the rule; jail is an exception, irrespective of political or public sensitivities.
Courts must balance the presumption of innocence with the need to prevent prolonged pretrial incarceration.
Granting bail to the applicants, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the judicial responsibility to safeguard constitutional liberties while ensuring justice. The court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court’s independent findings.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2024