The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Bihar government to explain its decision to release former MP Anand Mohan, who was serving a life sentence for instigating a mob that killed Gopalganj district magistrate G Krishnaiah in December 1994.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari issued notices on a petition filed by the former IAS officer’s wife Umadevi Krishnaiah to Bihar, the Centre and Mohan, who is currently residing in Saharsa. The court will hear the matter again next week.
The court directed the registrar to supply a copy of the petition to Bihar government’s counsel, who will pass on the same to the superintendent of police, Saharsa, for it to be served on Mohan.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra assisted by advocate Ritu Raj argued the petition for the aggrieved widow, claiming that the decision of the Bihar government on April 10 to amend the Bihar Prison Manual was done with the sole aim to release Mohan. He was sentenced to death by a trial court in 2007. The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Patna high court in 2008, a decision which the Supreme Court upheld in July 2012.
“The said amendment has been brought about only for the benefit of the convict as he is apparently the only convict to get the benefit of this amendment,” the petition said.
{{/usCountry}}“The said amendment has been brought about only for the benefit of the convict as he is apparently the only convict to get the benefit of this amendment,” the petition said.
{{/usCountry}}The April amendment introduced a crucial change, which allowed a convict punished for murder of a public servant to be eligible for premature release after undergoing 14 years of incarceration. The earlier rule on remission prevailing in the state was governed by 2002 policy, under which such convicts were to be considered for premature release only on completion of 20 years of imprisonment.
The petition termed the April 10 notification “ex-facie illegal” and contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court clearly laying down 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.
Further, the petition pointed out that a 2000 judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar case highlighted the need to consider past criminal antecedents, social status and the potentiality of the accused to commit crimes in the future as some of the guiding principles for an early release.
Luthra termed it a very “unfortunate” case, as being at the time of the incident, Mohan was a member of the Bihar assembly. The petition further stated that Mohan enjoyed political support and belonged to an influential family. There 32 criminal cases were pending against him and it could not be said with certainty that he “lost his potentiality to commit crime”.
While inside jail, the petition highlighted instances where he was found to possess mobile phones with SIM cards. On another occasion, he was allowed to attend the trial by travelling in his own vehicle and staying at a government circuit house on his return. These were important considerations that should have gone against Mohan’s release, the petitioner pointed out.
Further, the petition filed by advocate Tanya Shree said: “The notification of April 10 and order dated April 24 (releasing Mohan) is arbitrary, unreasonable, and has been passed without taking into consideration the guidelines for premature release of convicts issued in Laxman Naskar case and has resulted in denial of justice to family of deceased and is in violation of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (life and liberty) of Constitution.”
The petitioner pointed out that in cases where punishment is commuted from death to life term, the convict ought to remain in jail for the remainder of his life.
The top court also heard an application moved by ex-IAS officer and former union minister KJ Alphons, who sought to intervene in the proceedings. Present in person, Alphons said, “I seek to be impleaded in the matter as I am deeply distressed by the state’s decision.” The court allowed Alphons to render assistance when the matter is next heard. The next date of hearing is May 19.