New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, April 4, said that it expected the Uttar Pradesh government to act on the suggestion of the Special Investigation Team it had constituted and challenge the bail of Union minister’s son Ashish Mishra, accused of owning the vehicle which allegedly mowed down four farmers in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri last year.The Chief Justice of India-led bench of the Supreme Court had revealed that the SIT had twice recommended that the state challenge Mishra’s bail, on the March 30 hearing of the special leave petition filed by the family members of the four farmers, against Ashish’s bail.The court has reserved its order on the challenge.Ashish is the son of Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Union Minister of State for home, Ajay ‘Teni’ Mishra. On October 3 last year, after the car allegedly belonging to Ashish ran over four farmers protesting against a now-repealed central law, violence broke out in the area and led to the lead of a journalist and three others. The Special Investigation Team led by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court, later called the mowing down of the farmers a “planned conspiracy.”Mishra was granted bail by the high court on February 10, the day of the first phase of the seven-phased Uttar Pradesh’s assembly polls. Lower courts had earlier rejected Ashish Mishra’s bail plea. He was released from prison on February 15.On Monday, apex court bench comprising the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, also pointed out that there was a problem in which the high court appeared to have gone into the merits of the case while hearing Mishra’s bail.The Uttar Pradesh government represented by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani sought to establish that Mishra is not a flight risk and that the witnesses have been given adequate protection, reported LiveLaw.Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure that witnesses in the case are protected.Jethmalani also submitted that the report of the SIT which had recommended that Uttar Pradesh challenge the bail, has been forwarded to the state government.“We can’t force you [to file an appeal]. You didn’t respond when [the] letter was written. This is not a matter where you have to wait so much,” CJI Ramana said.In reply, Jethmalani sought to establish that the SIT had recommended the appeal citing that there could be tampering of evidence but that “97 witnesses were personally telephoned” and none of them said they had received a threat.Jethmalani added that the state had opposed the bail before the Allahabad high court and that its stand remains the same.For the petitioners, senior advocate Dushyant Dave submitted that the high court entered into irrelevant considerations, asking how a high court can refer to inquest and postmortem reports to come to conclusions on firearm injuries, LiveLaw reported.CJI Ramana replied to this with a question as to how the judge could have gone into the post mortem report when the question was if the bail has to be cancelled. “This was going into the merits and describing the wounds and all is completely unnecessary while considering bail application,” the CJI said.Also read: Ajay Mishra and Mukhtar Ansari: The Saga of UP’s Political Cocktail of Crime and CommunalismDave also noted that the Allahabad high court judge to gave Mishra bail did not consider the SIT’s investigation which concluded that there was pre-determination behind the killings and instead focused on bullet injuries.For the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan also submitted that the victims’ families were not heard by the high court either as their internet connection had got disconnected.Submitting for Mishra, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar said that he was in a different venue according to some CCTV records and asked the apex court bench to look into the matter from the angle of “the lynching by the farmers”. Kumar claimed, along with Jethmalani, that witnesses have been provided with security.“You say you’ve given witness protection. Those aren’t issues. We constituted SIT and requested judge to monitor. Such a grave situation, you’re admitting it is grave. We expected state to act on suggestion of the SIT,” CJI Ramana said.At a point, Dave interjected to say that one of the “protected” witnesses was given life threats and an FIR was lodged against him. However, the state attempted to represent it as a dispute related to Holi celebrations, Dave said.