E-Paper
‘Report to police every 15 days’ SC orders Anand Mohan on plea against release
Anand Mohan walked out of jail on April 27, 2023, days after Bihar government on April 10 made a change in provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual that barred his release
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered former Bihar member of Parliament (MP) Anand Mohan to deposit his passport and report to the local police station every 15 days in Bihar as the court took up a petition challenging his release from jail on remission after the government changed the remission rules.
“The respondent is directed to deposit his passport and record his presence at the local police station every fortnight,” a bench of justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan said on a petition filed by Umadevi Krishnaiah, whose husband was murdered in December 1984 when he was Gopalganj district magistrate. Anand Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2007 for his death, a verdict that was upheld by the Patna high court in 2008 and the Supreme Court in July 2012.
Anand Mohan, however, walked out of jail on April 27, 2023, days after Bihar government on April 10 removed a prohibition in the Bihar Prison Manual against premature release of life convicts guilty of murdering public servants.
In October last year, Anand Mohan shared the stage with chief minister Nitish Kumar at an event to unveil statues of two freedom fighters, Anand Mohan’s grandfather and uncle, and thanked the chief minister for the rule change. “I can publicly say that I am here because of Nitish Kumar as he amended the law that facilitated my release...,” Anand Mohan said at the event.
In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the Union government appeared in the matter for the first time and sought four weeks to file a response. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the petitioner, said the Centre’s request was a ruse to delay the hearing and showed from the record that the top court had issued noticeto the Bihar government, Union government and Anand Mohan way back on May 8, 2023.
The court allowed the Centre one last opportunity to file its response within a week. “No further opportunity shall be granted,” the bench said.
“It is not at your sweet will that whenever you want, you will appear before the Supreme Court. Who is the officer at whose instruction time is sought? How suddenly one fine morning, he has decided to file a response,” the bench remarked.
Luthra, assisted by advocate Tanya Shree, told the court that this was one of the “bizarre” cases where the convict has been granted remission without fulfilling the minimum required sentence of 14 years. He said, “The actual punishment suffered by him is only six years,” Luthra said.
Senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi who appeared for Anand Mohan refuted this claim and sought a clarification on the deposit of the passport as directed by the court. “We are passing this order keeping in mind there are other cases against him,” the bench said, a reference to the petitioner citing several criminal cases registered against Mohan.
The petition questioned the April 10 amendment to the jail manual and allowed a convict punished for the murder of a public servant to be eligible for premature release after undergoing 14 years of incarceration. The prevailing rule in the state on remission was governed by the 2002 policy under which such convicts were to be considered for premature release only on completion of 20 years of imprisonment.
Umadevi alleged that the amendment was introduced contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court that make it clear that the remission policy prevailing at the time of conviction will govern remission granted to life convicts. By this rule, the 2002 policy held the field.
She alleged that the amendment was introduced to benefit Mohan, who belonged to an influential family. He had 32 criminal cases pending against him and enjoyed political support. Even at the time when Krishnaiah was killed, Mohan was a member of the Bihar assembly. The petition said that while granting remission the state is bound to consider past criminal antecedents, social status and the potential of the accused to commit crime in future before ordering a convict’s early release.
