Lakhimpur Kheri violence: SC told FIR registered against Ashish Mishra, others for allegedly threatening witness

An FIR, or First Information Report, is a formal police record of information about an alleged criminal offence. It starts the criminal investigation process. Registering an FIR does not prove that anyone is guilty. It records the allegation so police can examine evidence and question people involved.

In this case, Uttar Pradesh police registered an FIR under Sections 195A, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offences involved threatening a witness, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. Police recorded the FIR after a Deputy Superintendent of Police took the witness’s statement in Punjab and found substance in his allegation.

The FIR allows investigators to pursue the complaint through evidence collection and witness interviews. The Supreme Court directed a DSP-level officer, or an officer of equivalent rank, to lead this investigation. The police must also report the latest investigation status at the next hearing. The FIR therefore creates an official route for examining alleged interference with the trial.

The allegation was that Baljinder Singh, a key witness in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case, had been threatened and pressured not to give evidence during the trial. He approached the Supreme Court in January, saying a caller had warned him against deposing. The allegation raised concerns about interference with a criminal trial.

Uttar Pradesh police later sent a Deputy Superintendent of Police to Punjab, where Singh lives. During the visit, Singh’s statement was recorded. He confirmed that he had faced pressure not to testify. The police affidavit told the Supreme Court that the allegation had “some substance,” leading to the FIR.

The FIR named former Union Minister and BJP leader Ajay Mishra, his son Ashish Mishra, and two others. It was registered at Padua police station under provisions concerning threats to give false evidence, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy. Armed police protection was also extended to Singh and his family. The Supreme Court ordered a senior officer to head the probe.

The October 3, 2021, Lakhimpur Kheri violence claimed eight lives. Four of those killed were farmers who were mowed down during a protest against the farm laws, which have since been scrapped. The death toll shows why the incident became a major criminal case requiring a full trial.

According to the police charge sheet, Ashish Mishra allegedly arrived at the protest site in a Mahindra Thar SUV with a convoy. One vehicle allegedly ploughed into a group of farmers. A journalist was also among the deceased. Afterward, enraged farmers allegedly pulled three occupants from one vehicle and lynched them.

The article describes a separate criminal case linked to that lynching. That case remains pending trial, while the accused farmers received bail in January 2023. The main killings case also remains active, with 99 witnesses yet to be examined when the Supreme Court hearing discussed trial progress. The scale and separate strands of violence make witness protection especially important.

A criminal trial depends on witnesses being able to give evidence freely and truthfully. If a key witness is threatened or pressured not to testify, the court may lose important information about what happened. That can make it harder to establish facts and may weaken the prosecution’s case, even when other evidence exists.

The Lakhimpur Kheri case illustrates the risk. Baljinder Singh alleged that he received a threatening call and was pressured not to depose. After a DSP recorded his statement in Punjab, police registered an FIR and provided armed protection for him and his family. The Supreme Court also required a senior officer to investigate the complaint.

Pressure can also slow proceedings while authorities examine the allegation and secure witnesses. Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that 99 witnesses remained to be examined and urged an expeditious trial. The court declined to monitor the trial directly, but ordered an update on the threat investigation. Protecting testimony remains central to a fair outcome.

The Supreme Court required a senior officer because the complaint involved an important witness in a sensitive case and named politically prominent accused. The court also had already criticised Uttar Pradesh police for taking too long to act on the threat complaint. A higher-ranking investigator could provide greater confidence that the allegation would be examined seriously and independently.

The police had earlier explained the delay by saying the complainant was unwilling to visit the police station. The court responded that a senior officer should have personally visited him to verify the written complaint. Later, a DSP went to Punjab, recorded Baljinder Singh’s statement, and police registered an FIR after finding some substance in his allegation.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan requested a DSP-level investigation because of the case’s sensitivity and the accused’s stature. Although Ashish Mishra’s lawyer opposed that request, the Bench accepted it. It ordered the statement-recording officer, or another officer of equivalent rank, to lead the probe and submit its latest status at the next hearing.

Ashish Mishra’s bail conditions restrict his movement and conduct while the criminal case continues. He is prohibited from entering Lakhimpur Kheri except when required for trial. The Supreme Court also imposed stringent conditions against him, his family members, or his supporters influencing or threatening witnesses. These rules allow release while reducing risks to the proceedings.

The restrictions mattered again when his lawyer sought permission for him to visit his hometown during Diwali. The Bench allowed the visit but kept all stringent conditions from its March 24, 2025, order in force. Mishra undertook to return from Lakhimpur on October 22. The court had earlier granted a similar two-day relaxation for Ram Navami.

Courts impose such conditions to protect witnesses, prevent contact from affecting testimony, and reduce the chance of further conflict. They also help preserve the trial’s integrity while bail continues. In this case, the alleged threat to Baljinder Singh made those safeguards especially important. Armed protection was separately provided to Singh and his family.

Witness protection is essential because witnesses often provide direct accounts, identify people, or explain other evidence. Their testimony helps a court reconstruct events and compare the prosecution’s claims with the defence’s response. If fear controls what a witness says, stays silent, or refuses to appear, the trial’s search for facts becomes less reliable.

The Lakhimpur Kheri case shows this pressure clearly. Baljinder Singh alleged that a threatening caller warned him against deposing. He later told a DSP that he had been pressured not to testify. Police registered an FIR, and armed protection was extended to Singh and his family. The Supreme Court ordered a senior officer to investigate.

Protection also supports accountability when accused people have public influence. Ajay Mishra was a former Union Minister and BJP leader, while Ashish Mishra is facing the main killings case. The court kept strict bail conditions and required an investigation update. These steps cannot decide guilt, but they help preserve evidence and give the trial a fair chance to establish responsibility.