Pinnacle court said that no accused may be subjected to unending detention

A bench headed by judge NV Ramana, in its verdict, proscribed the apprehension of the accused, son of Union minister Ajay Mishra, that his right to induce bail would now stand foreclosed if it's cancelled by the highest court of the land as no courts below would entertain the similar plea.

 A single-judge bench of the Allahabad court on February 10 had granted bail to Mishra following his nearly four-month-long incarceration within the case.

 The top court, while cancelling the bail, however, said it can't be oblivious to the submissions of the accused that cancellation of bail by this court is probably going to be construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his right to hunt bail.

 It is not necessary to dwell upon the wealth of case law which, irrespective of the stringent provisions in a very penal law or the gravity of the offence, has time and again recognised the legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration, it said.

 “To put it differently, no accused is subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, like in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a fairly long period of incarceration, or for the other valid reason, such stringent provisions will meltdown, and can't be measured over and above the correct of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” it said.

The bench failed to comply with the submission of senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the victim farmers, that the fresh plea be not heard by the identical state supreme court judge saying the magistrate of the court would take such a choice if any.

 "This Court is tasked with ensuring that neither the correct of an accused to hunt bail pending trial is expropriated, nor the 'victim' or the State are denuded of their right to oppose such a prayer," it said.

 “In a situation like this, and with a view to balance the competing rights, this Court has been invariably remanding the matter(s) back to the state supreme court for fresh consideration.

 “We are of the considered view that ends of justice would be adequately met by remitting this case to the judicature for a fresh adjudication of the bail application of the Respondent/­Accused, in a fair, impartial, and dispassionate manner, and keeping seeable the settled parameters which are elaborated...,” it said.

 On October 3 last year, eight people were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri during violence that erupted when farmers were protesting against state Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the realm.