Opposed Ashish Mishra’s bail, gave security to witnesses: UP govt

The state government seemed to suggest that Divjot Singh, one of the witnesses who was thrashed badly recently prompting some of them to come to the top court seeking protection, was thrashed over a Holi altercation in the presence of his security detail.

The state also claimed that it was in the process of deciding whether to appeal against Ashish Mishra’s bail and that the limitation period for doing so was not over yet. The affidavit was filed ahead of a scheduled court hearing on an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra.

The state government took exception to the claims made by families of the victims of the case that the state did not effectively oppose Ashish Mishra’s bail. The state said that the AAG had said in court that “by the vehicle of the applicant and his followers, protestors were dashed and following five persons – Nakshatra Singh, Daljeet Singh, Lavpreet Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Raman Kashyap – died and 13 others were injured”. The applicant ran away by firing, the affidavit quoted the AAG as saying.

The state also claimed that the witness who was thrashed recently was done so for a different reason and this was corroborated by his gunner. His gunner’s views were backed by other eyewitnesses, the state claimed.

The state contended that all the witnesses had said that this had nothing to do with the ruling party winning in the elections and dubbed the attempt to link the thrashing with the Lakhimpur Kheri incident as unwarranted.

The state said that each of the witnesses in the case were assigned an armed gunner each, along with a permanent security guard and were being continuously seen through CCTV cameras and the police who were on duty at barricades around their residences.

Some 98 witnesses have been provided security, the state affidavit, filed by the home department, said. The families of the victims have accused the state government of not effectively opposing his bail. They have also accused the state of not filing an appeal. They also claimed that their lawyer, who was appearing through video conferencing, was disconnected during the hearing and applications to re-hear him were rejected by the high court.