Read Time: 09 minutes
The reply of Bihar Government comes on account of the plea filed by slain IAS officer G. Krishnaiah’s wife, Umadevi, challenging Mohan’s remission, after he was awarded life term for murder, in which she stated that the remission was wrongly applied under Bihar Prison Manual of 2012, as the rules applicable at the time of Mohan's conviction was the Prison Manual of 1925
The Bihar government has justified before the Supreme Court, its decision to release gangster-turned-politician Anand Mohan from life term prematurely in the murder case of then Gopalganj District Magistrate, saying "status of the victim cannot be a factor to deny remission" as “the punishment for murder of general public or a public servant is same”.
Mohan, a former MP was sentenced to life term in the case related to lynching of IAS officer G Krishnaiah in 1994 by a mob led by him. He was released on remission on April 27.
Responding to a writ petition filed by Krishnaiah's wife, Umadevi against the decision, the Nitish Kumar government said, "The status of victim cannot be a factor for grant or refusal of remission. It is further submitted that the issue of pre-mature release of convicts is governed by the provisions of the Prisons Act and Notification issued thereunder and is covered under Section 432, 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.
The petitioner contended an amendment to the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 was brought about with retrospective effect vide amendment dated April 10, 2023, in order to ensure that the convict, Mohan should be granted the benefit of remission.
In an affidavit, the state government said that in view of the various orders passed by this court, the state revisited its policy of 2002, which was incorporated in Bihar Prison Manual 2012. It was found that the ineligibility for consideration of premature release of life convict who is guilty of murder of a public servant was not in consonance with the punishment prescribed for murder in general in Indian Penal Code, it claimed.
Further, the policy of the other state governments regarding the premature release of a life convict guilty for murder of a public servant has also been considered. It was found that there is no such distinction for premature release of life convicts guilty for murder of a public servant or the general public in other States of Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Telangna, Pondicherry etc.
“The punishment for murder of general public or a public servant is the same. On the one hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of the general public is considered eligible for premature release and on the other hand, the life convict prisoner guilty of murder of a public servant is not eligible for consideration for premature release. The discrimination on the basis of status of a victim was sought to be removed,” it said.
The state government also claimed there is no classification in the policy of Government of India as well as Model Prison Manual, 2016 forwarded by Central Government on premature release of convicts guilty of murder of public servant on duty and murder or any other person.
The state government also submitted that it has followed all the prescribed procedures for consideration of remission of Mohan, along with others and the relevant reports were found as favourable.
"The respondent has written three books during his incarceration and had participated in the work assigned during this period," it said.
All the relevant recommendations including the recommendations/opinion of the presiding judge was submitted to the prison department for consideration of the case of Mohan, it said.
Maintaining that it is committed to ensuring the protection and security of all public servants, the state government contended, “The petitioner attempts to proffer a very simplistic view of the matter when she seeks to draw a straight line between the amendment to the manual and release of the prisoners. This is certainly not the case and any person eligible for remission will have to have their cases considered in terms of Rule 482 of the manual."
The state government also raised the issue of maintainability of Article 32 petition, saying there is no fundamental rights involved in the matter related to remission policy of the State since the remission is always between the State and the convicts.
"The victim and/or his relative has not been conferred with any right to interfere in the State remission policy framed under an Act or Constitutional provisions," it said.
On May 9, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari had issued notice to the State of Bihar in the plea filed by Umadevi Krishnaiah.
Case Title: Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah. Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Please Login or Register
