This order does not decide the special leave petition on its merits and records no finding on the underlying case or on trial evidence. The reference to recent administrative developments is not elaborated in the order. The visit permission is conditional on paragraph 9 of the 24 March 2025 order and on return by 16 November 2026; it is not an unconditional liberty.
- Case
- Ashish Mishra alias Monu v. State of U.P.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Surya Kant, CJI; Joymalya Bagchi; V. Mohana
- Case numbers
- SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
- Outcome
- Order dated 26 October 2026 in a pending special leave petition: no further directions in continuation of the 5 October 2026 order; prosecution assurance on witness presence recorded; all sides directed to cooperate for timely trial conclusion; conditional Diwali visit permitted; matter posted on 30 November 2026. The petition itself remains undecided.
No further directions for now; Diwali visit permitted with conditions
On 26 October 2026, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, passed an order in the special leave petition of Ashish Mishra alias Monu against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that, in view of recent administrative developments, no further directions in continuation of its previous order dated 5 October 2026 were required to be issued.
The same order records the State's assurance that the prosecution will endeavour to ensure that witnesses remain present for examination and that no undue delay is caused towards completion of the trial, directs all sides to extend full cooperation for the timely conclusion of the trial, and permits the petitioner to visit his hometown in Lakhimpur Kheri district to celebrate the upcoming Diwali festival with his family members and close relatives, subject to conditions, with an undertaking to return on 16 November 2026. The matter is posted for further consideration on 30 November 2026.
The petition before the Court
The petition is SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 26 July 2022 in CRMBA No. 13762/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The record of proceedings lists a series of interlocutory applications on file, including an application for permission and an application for clarification or direction.
The order dated 26 October 2026 does not rehearse the facts of the underlying case or record any finding on the merits of the petition. It deals only with the directions sought at this stage of the proceedings and with the petitioner's festival visit.
What the Court was asked to decide at this hearing
Two questions were before the Court at this hearing: whether any further directions were required in continuation of its order dated 5 October 2026, and whether the petitioner could be permitted to visit his hometown for the Diwali festival. The order answers the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative, on conditions.
The Court's reasoning, as recorded
The order's reasoning on the first question is stated in a single sentence: in view of recent administrative developments, no further directions in continuation of the 5 October 2026 order are required. The order does not identify or describe those administrative developments, and this article does not speculate about them.
On trial progress, the order does not make a finding about delay. It records an assurance from counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh that the prosecution will make an endeavour to ensure witnesses remain present for examination and that no undue delay is caused towards completion of the trial, and it converts that assurance into a direction that all sides extend full cooperation for the timely conclusion of the trial.
Operative outcome and next date
The operative directions are fivefold. First, no further directions in continuation of the 5 October 2026 order are issued. Second, the prosecution's assurance on witness presence and avoidance of undue delay is recorded. Third, all sides are directed to cooperate for the timely conclusion of the trial. Fourth, the petitioner is permitted to visit his hometown in Lakhimpur Kheri district for the Diwali festival with family members and close relatives, subject to the conditions imposed in paragraph 9 of the Court's order dated 24 March 2025, on his undertaking to return on 16 November 2026. Fifth, the matter is posted on 30 November 2026 for further consideration.
The visit permission is therefore time-bound and conditional: it lasts for the festival period, it is tied to the conditions in paragraph 9 of the 24 March 2025 order, and it carries a fixed return date of 16 November 2026.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: directions are not decisions on the merits
This order is a useful example of case management at the Supreme Court: the Court manages the pace and conduct of a pending trial through directions and recorded assurances, without deciding the special leave petition itself. A recorded assurance by State counsel is not a finding of fact, and a direction to cooperate is not a verdict on who is responsible for any delay.
Note also the structure of a conditional permission: the festival visit is not an unconditional liberty. It is bounded by an earlier order's conditions (paragraph 9 of the 24 March 2025 order), by the purpose stated (celebrating Diwali with family and close relatives), and by a return undertaking with a fixed date. When reporting such orders, each of those three limits must be stated, because omitting any one of them changes what the Court actually allowed.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the Court decide about further directions in continuation of its 5 October 2026 order, and what reason did it give?
- What are the three limits on the Diwali visit permission stated in the order?
- Why is the prosecution's statement about witnesses described in this article as a recorded assurance rather than a finding of fact?
