The release of former Bihar MP Anand Mohan has once again come into the discussion of legal debate. The Supreme Court has completed the hearing on the petition challenging the remission given to him and has reserved its decision. During the hearing, the court has raised many serious questions not only on the decision of the Bihar government but also on the entire exemption process. The court asked how the release was granted when the conditions required by law were not fulfilled?
The court also said that not considering the murder of a public servant as the 'rarest of the rare' crime can send a wrong message to the society. The judges' comments during the hearing clearly indicated that they wanted to see whether the rules were followed fairly or whether the process was changed to benefit a particular person. Now the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter will not only decide the release of Anand Mohan, but can also affect the remission policy of the states in future.
This case is also important because Anand Mohan was arrested in 1994 by the then District Magistrate of Gopalganj, G. Was convicted in the murder case of Krishnaiah. He was given life imprisonment in the year 2008. In the year 2023, the Bihar government amended the jail rules, after which Anand Mohan was released. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. On behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra made many serious arguments in the court.
The whole matter at a glance (Getty Image)
He said that the actual sentence of 20 years required for remission was not completed, the jail administration hid old criminal records, the parole period was wrongly added to the sentence and the facts related to age were also distorted. During the hearing on these arguments, the Supreme Court asked many sharp questions and now everyone's eyes are fixed on the final decision.
Anand Mohan was appointed in 1994 by the then District Magistrate of Gopalganj, G. Was convicted in the murder case of Krishnaiah. Earlier he was sentenced to death, which was later changed to life imprisonment. In the year 2023, the Bihar government amended the jail manual and paved the way for granting remission to some categories of prisoners. After this Anand Mohan was released from jail. This decision was taken by G. This petition is filed by DM G. It was filed by Krishnaiah's wife Uma Krishnaiah.
Krishnaiah was murdered after an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for this crime. However, after the Bihar government granted remission in his sentence, he came out of jail on April 24, 2023, after serving 14 years of his sentence. The Supreme Court today said that the Patna High Court's observation that murder of a government employee does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases will actually encourage criminals to commit crimes against government employees.
On behalf of Bihar government, senior lawyer Ranjit Kumar said that 'Unfortunately at that time there was jungle raj in Bihar.' This comment was made by the bench of Justice Dipankar and Justice Sheel Nagu during the hearing of the petition, in which the decision of the Bihar Government was challenged under which Gopalganj DM G. Former Bihar MP Anand Mohan was released prematurely in the mob lynching case of Krishnaiah. After which the court has asked 5 important questions in this case.
All the questions of the Supreme Court (Getty Image)
1. Was remission given without fulfilling the condition of 20 years?
The petitioner claims that the actual sentence of 20 years required for remission was not completed. The court also raised serious questions on this aspect.
2. Were Anand Mohan benefited by changing the rules?
The court asked whether the government created a way to benefit a particular person by changing the jail rules?
3. Can't the murder of DM be considered 'rarest of the rare'?
During the hearing, the court said that not considering the murder of a public servant as a crime of the rarest category would give a wrong message. This comment is being considered as one of the most important comments of the case.
4. Were old records hidden?
The petitioner alleged that the jail administration did not give information about Anand Mohan's old criminal cases to the Remission Board. The court also expressed displeasure over this and said that the records should have been verified properly.
5. Were parole and age rules misused?
Senior lawyer Siddharth Luthra said that the three parole period taken by Anand Mohan was also added to the sentence, whereas the Supreme Court had earlier made it clear that this cannot be done. He also alleged that the age was declared higher to avail the benefit of remission. On this, Justice Dutta commented that it seemed as if everyone was working in the same direction.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Bihar government, cited the decision of the Patna High Court, in which while commuting Anand Mohan's death sentence to life imprisonment, the case was not considered 'the rarest of the rare'. The government claims that the rules were changed not for any one person, but for all eligible prisoners. However, the petitioners do not agree with this argument and say that Anand Mohan directly benefited from the change.
