बेबाक · Editorial
Arrest, Remand, Bail: The Criminal Process Must Use One Yardstick for Every Accused
From Madurai to Kollam, recent cases show that arrest, remand and bail earn public trust only when they rest on stated reasons and evidence, not on the accused's standing.
Four cases, one test
Several recent cases have tested the criminal process. In Madurai, the CCB registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and for criminal conspiracy. It acted on a complaint from the sitting legislator for Madurai Central, who alleged a horse-trading bid. A former Deputy Mayor of the city was picked up for inquiry, arrested and released on bail. In a separate matter, a court extended the remand of a former minister in a private school bribery case. The Kerala High Court granted bail to the accused in the Nedumbassery car accident case. In Kollam, Mohammed Ajaj Ahmed was arrested. He was wanted in connection with the murder in Bihar of a Rashtriya Janata Dal leader, Baidyanath Mahto, and another individual. The common thread is that arrest, remand and bail command trust only when they are decided on law and stated reasons.
Liberty against investigation
Each case contains an old tension. Investigators need time and access to evidence. Citizens are entitled to liberty until a court finds them guilty. In the bribery case, the public prosecutor argued that granting bail at this stage could hamper the investigation, and the remand was extended. In Nedumbassery, the Kerala High Court weighed the other side. It cited the accused's age, as they are in their early twenties. It also noted their lack of criminal history and the time they had already spent in custody. Both outcomes can be lawful. The question is whether the reasoning behind each is visible and consistent, so that custody is never quietly turned into punishment before trial.
The strongest case each way
The case for firm custody is serious. An accused with standing in public life can reach witnesses, records and officials in ways an ordinary suspect cannot. In corruption and conspiracy cases, early release can mean evidence lost for good. The case for liberty is just as serious. Remand that stretches on becomes a sentence without a verdict. And when a criminal complaint comes from one public figure against another, there is a real risk that the law becomes a weapon. The opposite risk is equally real: that complaints are shelved because the accused is powerful. Whether the alleged horse-trading bid happened remains contested and untested. Only a full investigation, and then a court, can settle it.
What the record shows
The record holds some reassuring evidence. The Kerala High Court did not stop at granting bail. It set out its grounds and fixed November 16 as the release date for the first accused, Suhail Sajeev, to accommodate the investigating agency. That is a calibrated order, not a reflexive one. The Kollam arrest shows that a suspect wanted in Bihar can be traced and held far from where the crime took place, a reminder of what policing across state lines can achieve. The Madurai case shows how quickly an arrest can be followed by bail. That is not wrong in itself. But it leaves the public uncertain what, if anything, the inquiry will establish.
The verdict
The concern is not any single order. It is the pattern the public sees. Cases involving political actors too often arrive with an arrest and a headline, then fade from view, and citizens never learn whether a charge sheet was filed or a trial held. That damages everyone. The accused who may be innocent carries the cloud indefinitely. The complainant who may be right never sees vindication. And the citizen concludes that criminal law is theatre for the powerful and a trap for the poor. The rule of law requires the same yardstick for a former minister, a former Deputy Mayor, young accused in a road accident case and a man wanted in Bihar.
A workable way forward
Three steps are within reach. First, every order extending remand should record specific reasons, as the Kerala High Court did when it granted bail, so that the requirement to justify custody falls on the State, not on the accused. Second, investigative agencies such as the CCB should set internal timelines for completing inquiries in Prevention of Corruption Act cases against current or former public office-holders. They should also publish the status of those cases at fixed intervals without prejudging the outcome. Third, states should formalise cooperation between their police forces, so that warrants travel as easily as suspects do. Each step costs little and would show that the process serves the public rather than the powerful.
An arrest is the start of a question, not its answer; the republic is judged by whether that question is pursued with the same care for every accused.
What this editorial rests on
Drawn from our live multi-newsroom feed — read the reporting at source.
An editorial is the considered opinion of the Aad Tak desk, argued from the sourced reporting above and written under our published persona, बेबाक. We name institutions, not parties. If we are wrong, we will say so. How we work →