Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
16 July 2026 4:39 PM IST
The Court orally observed that such a view might make criminals think that they can get away after murdering public servant.
The Supreme Court today(July 16) orally remarked that the Patna High Court's observation that murder of a public servant doesn't fall in the 'rarest of the rare' category would actually encourage criminals to commit crimes against public servants.
The remarks were made while a bench comprising Justice Dipankar and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition 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. It also made serious remarks about the apparent concealment of pending cases against him, including the one allegedly committed while in custody in the present case. The bench has reserved the case for judgment.
The present 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 of jail on April 24, 2023 after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.
If shooting point blank at a public servant on duty is not rarest of rare, then what is it? Supreme Court questions
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar(for the State of Bihar) referred to the Patna High Court's judgment, which converted Mohan's death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for life on the observation that the case doesn't fall within the rarest of rare category.
On this, Justice Datta orally commented that the case may not fall within the rarest of rare category for the Patna High Court, but it was doubtful if judges from other States would take such a view. He said: "One thing that troubles us, although it can't be reopened, murder of a public servant on duty is said to be not rarest of rare. Maybe in Bihar, it may not be rare. But we don't in other States, Mr Kumar, same mindset would be there in the judges that murder of a public servant is [not rarest of rare]."
Kumar responded that unfortunately during that time in Bihar, there was jungle raj.
Justice Datta remarked that such findings would encourage criminals to continue committing such crimes and the observations should have been applied by the State. "These observations would encourage the criminals that you will get away with murdering a public servant and the Court will not consider it rarest of rare. To convert death to life by saying that murdering a public servant doesn't constitute rarest of rare, it's something else. The State should have come up in appeal against the order," he said.
Singh submitted that the State had appealed the order before the Supreme Court, but it was upheld.
Today, Kumar took the bench through various factual aspects of the case. He submitted that Mohan was granted remission after he completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, including the undertrial period. Kumar explained that Mohan had first applied for remission in July 2021, which was recommended by the Additional Sessions Judge but was rejected by the State Board. He again applied for remission after a period of 13 months, and since the Judge's recommendation was applicable for three years, the recommendation from probation officers was taken successfully.
To this, Justice Datta initially commented that the policy was "followed to the T" and therefore, he was entitled to the remission. However, when the Court referred to the records, it was found that the requirement is 14 years without remission and 20 years after earned remission. However, on the date Mohan had first applied for remission, he had completed 14 years but not 20 years requirement.
Justice Datta commented that the convict himself has accepted he hasn't completed the requirement of 20 years. He says: "Government had said, look, here you applied on the date where you have not completed the second condition; apply when you have completed; could that order be assailed as bad in law?"
Kumar submitted that the Rules allowed him to apply not more than four months before completing the requirement. He added that the date on which the sessions judge recommended the convict for remission was when he had completed both requirements of 14 years actual sentence and 20 years with earned remission.
Questions were also asked by the bench regarding the concealment of pending cases. The bench pointed out that the jailer said there are no pending cases against Mohan, where infact two cases were pending. This information was forwarded to the Remission Board based on which he was released.
Conceding to this, Kumar said that he can't quarrel with this position that the jailer didn't disclose the pending cases. He suggested that the matter can be sent back to the Remission Board for reconsideration without taking any coercive step since more than three years have passed and the convict has crossed 70 years.
To this, Justice Datta stated that the Court will consider it but added: "He [District Magistrate] would have survived, had it not been you. He was lying in injured condition."
Things would have been different if the Remission Board knew about his pending cases: Justice Datta
The Court also heard Advocate representing the convict. Justice Datta asked if the Sessions Judge was aware of the pending cases against the convict when he recommended him for remission. He also asked if the Remission Board was aware of such cases. He commented that the law requires full and fair disclosure.
The Advocate responded that the Court will have to consider if such cases are so significant that it would become a hurdle to him after such a long time. He added that in some cases he has been acquitted. But Justice Datta responded that the convict was acquitted after the Remission Board's decision and not before it. So had the Board known about the pending criminal records, things would have been different.
The Court asked the advocate representing the Board to respond. The counsel responded that they have considered everything before recommending the convict's remission.
He also refuted the argument raised by the petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra that the rules were changed to grant remission to Mohan. He submitted that except in some States, all others don't have a rule barring persons convicted for murder of a public servant from being eligible for remission.
The Court asked about this conduct in jail; counsel submitted that Anand wrote a book which is being prescribed by the State in schools. He also submitted that Mohan comes from the family of freedom fighters.
To this, Justice Datta warned him not to disrespect freedom fighters. "Freedom fighter would turn in his grave. Don't disrespect a freedom fighter by taking the name of a person who is an MP who kills a district magistrate in such a fashion. He can't be granted benefit just because his ancestors were freedom fighters. Letter of SP indicating that he has committed an offence while in prison, show us! Why this hide and seek?"
Rosy picture painted of his conduct, every officer seems bent to grant him remission: SC
Justice Nagu said that probation officers have given a "rosy picture" of his conduct while not referring to his pending cases.
"Whose duty is it to tell you that there are two FIRs against him? We are not taking you [Board] to task, but it was someone's duty. We are leaving the probation officer, but the superintendent of the jail had the duty. They say you were not told. Board consist of very high-ranking officers; is it not a part of your duty to see if he wasn't involved in any case? Unfortunately, it seems everyone was bent in a certain direction...This is misrepresentation. Very sorry to say, you have been misled. You should not adopt the submissions of State of Bihar or the Respondent 4, you should be neutral," Justice Datta orally commented.
Luthra(for the petitioner) made a few submissions through VC. He submitted that a few cases have been pending against him, including a 2006 and 2014 case. He informed the Court that Mohan was released on parole more than three times. He stated that the period of parole has to be excluded while counting the actual period of custody as per various judgments of this Court and questioned why the State didn't disclose this.
To this, Justice Datta asked the State to respond to this serious allegation.
Luthra also submitted that the convict has misrepresented his age to get the benefit of release. To this, Justice Datta said: "To hear his release, every dice has been loaded in his favour."
Background
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 removed by the State Government through an amendment to the remission policy in April 2023, paving the way for the release of Anand Mohan.
Uma Krishaniah has challenged the circular issued by the Bihar Home Department (Prisons) on April 10, 2023, 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.
Terming the State Government's decision as having been taken based on "extraneous considerations", the petitioner argues that the relevant factors, such as the prisoner's conduct in jail and 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.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, assisted by AoR Tanya Shree.
Case Details: TELUGU UMADEVI KRISHNAIAH Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR|W.P.(Crl.) No. 204/2023 Diary No. 18261 / 2023
