Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Timeline of the Inquiry, the Accused and the Court Battle

The Supreme Court is due to hear Ashish Mishra’s application Bail

PTI reported on 22 October 2026 that a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was likely to take up the matter on 26 October, including Ashish Mishra’s request about bail conditions (Nagaland Post, PTI; India Today). The same report said 86 of 130 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

This page was last updated on 23 October 2026, before the hearing. Nothing here should be read as the outcome of that hearing.

Vigilance report on the trial judge sent to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Charges and trial

The victims’ side, represented by Prashant Bhushan, had raised doubts about the trial judge and the prosecutor. On 22 September the court had called for a report from the Allahabad High Court’s vigilance side in a sealed cover. On 5 October it directed that the vigilance officer’s report “shall be placed before the Chief Justice for an appropriate decision” (LiveLaw). PTI described the complaint as alleging that the presiding officer had transferred several cases to the judge’s own court and acquitted the accused in them (Nagaland Post, PTI).

The Uttar Pradesh government told the court a new special public prosecutor with 16 years’ experience had been proposed. Ashish Mishra’s counsel, Siddharth Dave, objected to changing the prosecutor midway and said 86 witnesses had been examined. These are allegations and submissions; no finding of misconduct against the judge has been reported.

No further relaxation of bail conditions Bail

Ashish Mishra’s counsel asked for relaxed conditions so he could attend family functions, including his daughters’ birthdays. The bench said: “There is no ground to entertain this prayer at this stage” (ETV Bharat; The New Indian Express). ETV Bharat reported that the conditions confine him to Delhi or Lucknow and bar him from entering Lakhimpur Kheri or taking part in political events.

Police tell the court the Mishras will not be prosecuted for witness intimidation Witness allegations

Uttar Pradesh Police told the Supreme Court that “no evidence has been found” that Ashish Mishra was involved in the alleged intimidation of witnesses, and that neither Ajay Mishra nor Ashish Mishra would be prosecuted in that case. Only one person, Amandeep Singh, was charge-sheeted (LawBeat; Bar and Bench; India Legal). Dave told the bench 64 witnesses remained and the trial would “wrap up in three months”.

This conclusion is the police’s, in the separate intimidation case. It is not a ruling in the main violence trial, and the complainant was given time to respond.

The Supreme Court is “disappointed” that no witnesses were examined for two months Charges and trial

The bench noted that no witness had been examined for about two months and that the state’s status report gave no reason. In the main case, 44 of 131 listed witnesses had been examined, 15 dropped and 72 remained; in the second case, 26 of 35 had deposed (LiveLaw; The Indian Express). The court asked the trial judge to secure witnesses lawfully, apply the witness protection scheme and try to finish both trials in a time-bound way.

Prashant Bhushan, for the victims, alleged that witnesses were being intimidated and so were not coming. Those were submissions, not findings.

An FIR is registered over a witness’s complaint of threats and a bribe offer Witness allegations

Witness Baljinder Singh complained on 20 June 2025 that an unidentified man offered Rs 1 lakh and threatened consequences if Baljinder Singh testified. After the Supreme Court questioned police inaction in August (Scroll), an FIR naming Ajay Mishra, Ashish Mishra and two others was registered on 4 October 2025 (Scroll).

An FIR records a complaint. In July 2026 police said they found no evidence against the Mishras and charge-sheeted only one other person.

Weekend family visits allowed Bail

The court let Ashish Mishra reach Lakhimpur Kheri on Saturday night and stay until Sunday evening, then return to Lucknow, to see his family. The bench barred any political meeting or activity during the visits (The Week, PTI; LiveLaw). The public prosecutor was left to trim the witness list.

The court orders an inquiry into claims of witness influence Witness allegations

Prashant Bhushan alleged Ashish Mishra was influencing witnesses. The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to inquire. Mishra denied the claims and said such allegations were raised each time the bail case was listed (ETV Bharat).

Ajay Mishra loses the Kheri Lok Sabha seat Politics

Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’, who stayed on as Union Minister of State for Home after the 2021 deaths despite opposition and farmer union demands for his removal, lost Kheri to the Samajwadi Party’s Utkarsh Verma in the 2024 general election. The farmers’ demand for his dismissal had been one of the unmet demands after the farm laws were repealed (The Quint).

Interim bail made absolute Bail

The court made Ashish Mishra’s interim bail absolute, let him stay in Delhi because his daughters study there, and directed the trial court to fix a schedule and speed up the trial. Only 7 of 117 witnesses had been examined; Prashant Bhushan said that was seven in 19 months. The farmers accused in the second case also had their bail continued (The Tribune).

Delhi visits allowed for family care Bail

The court relaxed the bar on being in Delhi so Ashish Mishra could care for his mother and arrange his daughter’s treatment, on condition he did not address the media or public meetings (The Tribune).

Interim bail for Ashish Mishra, and for four farmers in the second case Bail

The court gave Ashish Mishra eight weeks’ interim bail on condition that he leave Uttar Pradesh within a week of release and not stay in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi, except for the trial. Acting on its own, it also gave interim bail to Gurvinder Singh, Kawaljeet Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Vichitra Singh, accused in the second case, saying: “There are two separate FIRs with different narratives” (LiveLaw). The interim order was extended repeatedly.

Earlier that month the trial judge had told the Supreme Court the trial could take about five years in the normal course, given 208 prosecution witnesses (Scroll).

Charges framed against Ashish Mishra and 12 others Charges and trial

The trial court rejected discharge pleas and framed charges against 13 accused under IPC sections for rioting, attempt to murder, grievous hurt, murder, mischief and criminal conspiracy (147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302, 427, 120B) and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with Arms Act charges against Ashish Mishra, Ankit Das, Satya Prakash Tripathi, Latif alias Kale, Nandan Singh Bisht and Sumit Jaiswal. The 14th accused, Virendra Shukla, was charged under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). The court set 16 December for the prosecution to begin its evidence (The New Indian Express; The Indian Express).

Framing a charge means the judge found enough ground to hold a trial. It is not a finding of guilt.

The High Court refuses bail on reconsideration Bail

After the Supreme Court sent the bail plea back, the High Court heard it again and rejected it (NDTV). Ashish Mishra took the case to the Supreme Court, where it stayed for the next four years.

The Supreme Court sets aside the first bail Bail

Ruling on the victims’ families’ appeal, the court set aside the High Court’s bail, saying the victims had been denied a fair and effective hearing and the High Court had relied on irrelevant matters. Ashish Mishra was told to surrender within a week (The Tribune; The Quint).

The High Court grants bail Bail

Ashish Mishra was granted bail and released on 15 February (NDTV). The victims’ families appealed.

The SIT files a charge sheet naming 14 accused Investigation

The Special Investigation Team filed a charge sheet of about 5,000 pages naming Ashish Mishra as the main accused among 14 people. Virendra Kumar Shukla was charged separately with concealing evidence rather than with the main offences (NDTV). In December 2021 the SIT had told the court the incident was a “planned conspiracy”, not negligence, and sought tougher charges (The Quint).

A charge sheet is the investigators’ case, not a court finding.

A retired High Court judge to monitor the probe Investigation

Unhappy with the state’s status reports (Scroll), the court appointed retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain to oversee the SIT and reconstituted the SIT with three Uttar Pradesh cadre IPS officers not native to the state, S. B. Shiradkar, Preetinder Singh and Padmaja Chauhan, to the team (Supreme Court order).

Ashish Mishra arrested Investigation

Ashish Mishra was arrested late at night after about 11 hours of questioning (The Quint; NDTV). An arrest is part of an investigation, not a verdict.

The Supreme Court takes up the case on its own Investigation

Acting on letters from lawyers, the court registered a suo motu case and sought a status report on who had been named and arrested (Supreme Court proceedings). The next day it said it was not satisfied with the state’s action.

Two FIRs, two versions Investigation

The first FIR, on a farmer’s complaint, named Ashish Mishra and others over the deaths of the farmers. The second, filed on behalf of BJP worker Sumit Jaiswal, concerned the killing of the driver and two BJP workers and accused protesters (NDTV). The state announced Rs 45 lakh and a government job for each victim’s family after talks with farmer leaders; farmers later said the promises were not fully implemented (The Quint).

Each case has its own accused, witnesses and trial. Sumit Jaiswal, complainant in the second FIR, is himself an accused in the first.

Eight people die at Tikunia The incident

Farmers protesting the farm laws had gathered to oppose Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya’s visit to the district. Vehicles in a convoy linked to Ajay Mishra’s family drove into protesters walking on the road. Four farmers, Nachhattar Singh, Daljeet Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Gurvinder Singh, and journalist Raman Kashyap died. In the violence that followed, driver Hari Om Mishra and BJP workers Shubham Mishra and Shyam Sundar were killed (Supreme Court order; NDTV). For the protest movement, see AiTimeline’s farmers’ protest timeline.

Who was driving, and who was in the vehicles, are questions for the trial. Ashish Mishra has denied being at the spot.