'Status of victim cannot be factor for remission...', Bihar government justifies Anand Mohan's early release in SC

The status of the 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 4334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reporting by Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Bihar government has told the Supreme Court that a convict undergoing life imprisonment in a murder case cannot be denied remission and “the punishment for murder of general public or a public servant is same”, while defending its decision to release former Bihar MP Anand Mohan Singh.

The state government’s response came on a plea by widow of the IAS officer G. Krishnaiah, who was lynched in 1994 by a mob led by Singh, against the former lawmaker premature release from prison. The plea by Umadevi Krishnaiah argued that Bihar government has specially brought about an amendment to the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 with retrospective effect vide amendment dated April 10, 2023, in order to ensure that the convict, Anand Mohan, be granted the benefit of remission. Mohan walked out of jail on April 27.

The petitioner has filed the plea through advocate Tanya Shree and senior advocate Sidharth Luthra represented her before the apex court. The state government, in an affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to the petition, said: “That 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 4334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.

The affidavit contended 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 and 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.

“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”, said the affidavit.

The Bihar government said it has followed all the prescribed procedures for consideration of remission of Mohan along with others. “The relevant reports were favourable. The respondent has written 3 books during his incarceration and had participated in the work assigned during this period…… The information with a check list was submitted by the Jail Authority to the IG, Prison.

All the relevant recommendations including the recommendations/opinion of the presiding judge was submitted to the prison department for consideration of the case of the Respondent no. 4 (Mohan). The same procedure is adopted for all or any of the convicts for consideration of his/her case for remission”, said the affidavit.

The state government said it is committed to ensuring the protection and security of all public servants, and while focusing on the amendment to Rule 481 (i) (a) of the Bihar Prison Manual 2012, the petitioner has sought to gloss over the effect and import of Rule 482 of the manual that inter alia prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Remission Board for processing case of remission.

“Thus, 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”, said the affidavit.

In May, the Supreme Court had issued notice on the plea filed by Telugu Umadevi Krishnaiah, the wife of G. Krishnaiah. The plea submitted that the life imprisonment handed down to gangster-turned-politician Mohan meant incarceration for his entire natural course of life. "The sentence of imprisonment for life given to a convict as a substitute for death sentence must be viewed differently and segregated from the ordinary life imprisonment given as the sentence of first choice. Life imprisonment, when awarded as a substitute for death penalty, has to be carried out strictly as directed by the court and would be beyond application of remission," the plea contended.

The petitioner contended that life imprisonment awarded as a substitute for death penalty has to be carried out strictly as directed by the court, and it would be beyond application of remission. "Imprisonment for life means full natural course of life and cannot be mechanically interpreted to be 14 years. It means that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath," it said.