Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra Temporary Diwali Visit to Lakhimpur Kheri

A limited change to a bail condition

The Supreme Court has permitted Ashish Mishra to visit his hometown of Lakhimpur Kheri to celebrate Diwali with family and close relatives. The permission is subject to the bail conditions already imposed, and he must return on November 16. The October 26 order arose in Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P., SLP(Crl) No. 7857 of 2022. Chief Justice Surya Kant sat with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. The relief changes the permitted place of stay for a limited period; it does not end the criminal case or determine guilt.

The distinction is central to understanding the order. Bail regulates an accused person's liberty while proceedings continue. A court can attach conditions to that liberty and later adjust them when it considers a specific request. Here, the operative permission is tied to a family festival and an identified return date. No broader exemption from the trial or from the remaining bail conditions has been reported.

How the travel restriction developed

Mishra's bail had initially been subject to a restriction against entering Lakhimpur Kheri except for appearances before the trial court. The Supreme Court later relaxed that restriction to allow weekend visits to his hometown. Although bail was confirmed, the Court kept the matter pending to monitor the progress of the trial. This latest order is another limited adjustment within that continuing supervision, rather than a fresh grant of unrestricted bail.

The underlying case concerns the October 3, 2021 violence at Lakhimpur Kheri. Five people, including four farmers and a journalist, were killed after vehicles allegedly linked to Mishra's convoy struck protesting farmers. Those allegations remain matters for the trial process. Reporting the incident as the background to the bail proceeding should not turn allegations against an accused person into findings made by the Supreme Court at this hearing.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mishra, requested permission for a Diwali visit and pointed to earlier festival relaxations. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the victims' side. The Court granted the limited request while retaining the terms previously imposed. The published account of the order states that Mishra may be in Lakhimpur Kheri with family and close relatives and must return on the specified date.

Trial progress and the judge transfer

The Bench also discussed the pace and administration of the trial. Ruchira Goel, standing counsel for Uttar Pradesh, informed the Court that a Special Public Prosecutor had been appointed. According to the State's account at the hearing, 90 of 131 witnesses had been examined, leaving 41. These figures describe progress reported to the Bench; they are not a judicial conclusion about the strength of the prosecution evidence or the likely outcome.

Bhushan referred to the transfer of the trial judge after concerns about the court's conduct had been raised. Dave said the transfer was a routine administrative step and did not rest on suspicion or an adverse finding against the judge. The Chief Justice expressly avoided casting aspersions. The Supreme Court did not make a misconduct finding against the transferred judicial officer in this bail hearing. That point matters because a transfer and a disciplinary conclusion are legally different events.

The Chief Justice emphasised that the trial should reach a timely conclusion while allowing a fair and orderly process. The prosecution must avoid both unnecessary delay and undue haste. The Court's discussion of scheduling did not replace the trial court's responsibility to hear the remaining witnesses and decide the case on evidence. Nor did it announce a fixed date by which the entire trial must be completed.

Practical effect of the order

Mishra may make the permitted festival visit only within the boundaries of the Court's order and the conditions already in force. The return requirement gives the relaxation a defined end. If compliance or the trial's progress becomes disputed, those questions can be brought back before the appropriate court. Nothing in the reported order suspends the prosecution or changes the burden of proof at trial.

For readers following criminal procedure, the development illustrates how bail conditions can be adjusted without deciding the merits. The location restriction was imposed to govern conduct during trial; the Court has now allowed a time-limited exception while continuing to monitor proceedings. The reported witness count and the comments about the trial judge are context for the hearing, but the legally operative change is the temporary permission to visit Lakhimpur Kheri. The case remains pending and the allegations await determination in the regular criminal process.