Plea Challenging Anand Mohan's Premature Release : Supreme Court To Hear On May 8 Plea Of Slain IAS Officer's Wife

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on May 8 a petition filed challenging the decision of the Bihar Government to grant premature release to former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in the case for the mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah in 1994.

The petition was filed by Uma Krishnaiah, the widow of District Magistrate G Krishnaiah, who was killed after an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. However, he walked out on jail on April 24 after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.

As per the remission policy of the State of Bihar, persons who are convicted for murder of public servants on duty were not eligible for premature release until they have completed at least 20 years of sentence. However, this bar was taken away by the State Government by amending the remission policy in April, paving the way for the release of Anand Mohan. Uma Krishaniah has approached the Supreme Court filing a writ petition challenging the circular issued by the Bihar Home Department (Prisons) on April 10 amending Rule 481(1)(a) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, as per which persons convicted for “murder of a public servant on duty” are also eligible for remission. She has also challenged the premature release of Anand Mohan.

Petitioner's counsel Advocate Tanya Shree mentioned the petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing, upon which the CJI agreed to list it on May 8.

Terming the decision of the State Government has taken on the basis of "extraneous considerations", the petitioner argues that the relevant factors such as conduct of the prisoner in the jail, past criminal antecedents have been ignored. It is further argued that the amendment of the state remission policy to facilitate Mohan's release is contrary to public policy and would amount to demoralising public servants. It is argued that the policy which was prevalent at the time of the offence should be applied.