IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2099 of 2008(A) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.2/08 OF KOLAZHI EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------- ANNAMMA, BRAHMAKULAM HOUSE KUTTOOR VILLAGE, KOTTEKKAD DESOM THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLAZHI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2099 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The facts in this case must disturb the conscience of the court. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. She is the mother of the 1st accused. 41.875 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the premises occupied by the 1st accused who is the son of the petitioner herein on 18/2/08. The petitioner does not reside along with the son. Admittedly though the house stands in her name, she has taken up residence along with a daughter of hers because of some strain in the relationship with the 1st accused. As soon as the contraband article was recovered from the possession of the 1st accused in the house occupied by him, though belonging to the petitioner herein, the petitioner – a woman, has been arrayed as an accused and apprehending B.A. No. 2099 of 2008 -: 2 :- arrest, she was constrained to come to this Court with a prayer for anticipatory bail. 2. After her submissions made at the Bar and after perusing the records, this Court felt that there was indifferent arraigning of the petitioner as the accused and the Investigating Officer was directed to appear and file a statement to explain why the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and on what material reasonably belief, if any, has been induced in the mind of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is involved in the crime and deserves to be arrayed as an accused. 3. The Investigating Officer has appeared in court. He has filed a statement. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Investigating Officer has now realised that there is no material against the petitioner – a lady aged about 65 years, to connect her in any way with the culpable indiscretion allegedly committed by her son – the 1st accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is not required to be arrested now. She shall not be arrested, it is undertaken. Steps have been taken to file a report before the learned Magistrate to delete the petitioner from the array of accused. 4. The subsequent events persuade me to hold that the matter need not be pursued further. But I must very strongly B.A. No. 2099 of 2008 -: 3 :- express my disapproval against the Investigating Officers without adequate application of mind arraigning persons as accused in such serious crime. Such indifference and want of application of mind on the part of the Investigating Officers has great consequences on the life of such persons arrayed as accused and such unjustified arraignment is certainly violation of the inalienable human rights of persons like the petitioner herein. I leave the matter there in view of the subsequent development. But it must be said that the police and the superior officers must cautiously guard against such unjustified arraignment. 5. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed as the apprehension of the petitioner is found to be unjustified now in view of the development. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 2099 of 2008 -: 4 :-