PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2024 >> [2024] FJHC 740

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


Chand v State [2024] FJHC 740; HAM288.2024 (10 December 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


Miscellaneous Case No. HAM 288 of 2024


IN THE MATTER of an application for bail pending Trial in the case of State vs Pritesh Chand at the Suva High Court criminal case HAC 254 of 2024


Pritesh Chand


v


State


For the Applicant: Mr. J. Reddy
For the State: Mr. V. Koroinivalu


Date of Bail Hearing: 29th November 2024
Date of Bail Ruling: 10th December 2024


BAIL RULING


  1. This is the ruling on the bail application filed by the Applicant.
  2. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion on the 31st of October 2024 seeking the following: -
  3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Pritesh Chand deposed on the 31st of October 2024 and he has set out the grounds for the application.

The Grounds for the Application

  1. The Applicant is charged with 1 count of Rape contrary to section 207 of the Crimes Act and he was produced in the Nasinu Magistrate’s Court on the 7th of October 2024 and his matter was transferred to the High Court.
  2. He appeared in the High Court on the 18th of October 2024, and he is now remanded in custody pending trial and he now makes a formal application for bail.
  3. He is now 42 years of age, and he was employed as a welder prior to his remand.
  4. His arrest is now having an emotional impact on him and his family especially on his parents.
  5. He has no previous convictions or previous violations of bail conditions or any other matters pending before any of the Honourable Court.
  6. He has been duly advised and verily believes that he is presumed innocent until the Court finds him guilty.
  7. If granted bail, he promises to abide by all the terms and conditions set out by the Honourable Court.
  8. He also seeks bail due to the projected length to start the trial.
  9. He proposes to stay with his father at Navitoko Road, Sawani and he undertakes not to contact the complainant or other State witnesses in any way.
  10. He also undertakes not to miss any of the Court dates that will be assigned to him by this Honourable Court.
  11. He is not a flight risk as he has no intention to leave Fiji, and he does not have any passport.
  12. He offers the following sureties: -
  13. Both of his proposed sureties are not adversely recorded, nor do they have any pending matters in Court.
  14. He is willing to deposit the sum of $1, 000 as a form of bond to ensure his attendance in all court cases and he proposes to report to Nausori Police Station as and when required by this Court.
  15. He understands that if he breaches any conditions of bail, then his bail will be revoked, and he will be sent back to the Remand Centre.
  16. The application for bail is opposed and the State has filed the affidavit of WDC 5029 Lusiana opposing the application.

The opposition to Bail

  1. WDC 5029 Lusiana, based at the Valelevu Police Station submits the following grounds for the refusal of bail: -
  2. The Applicant then responded and filed an affidavit in reply deposed on the 28th of November 2024.
  3. He maintained that he was not a threat to the complainant or other State witnesses, and he needs to be on bail to properly prepare to answer the charges at the Trial of this matter.
  4. The matter was then adjourned for bail hearing on the 26th of November 2024. The parties made oral submissions.
  5. In his submissions, the Applicant now offers to move away and to now reside in Clopcort Street, Ba and to report to Ba Police Station.

Analysis

  1. The application is made pursuant to section 12 (a) of the Bail Act 2002.
  2. The applicant is a first offender therefore he would normally be entitled to bail as of right. He however is charged with a domestic violence offence therefore the presumption in his favour is rebutted.
  3. The State is objecting to bail on the basis that he is closely related to the complainant and his proposed sureties are also close family members therefore the risk of interfering with the complainant and other state witnesses is high. No evidence is offered for this except for the investigating officer’s apprehension.
  4. The Applicant now proposes to relocate totally and live in Ba where he proposes to report to the Ba Police Station.
  5. In this case, the Trial date is a long way off as the plea is yet to be taken and other directions made in this matter.
  6. The Applicant will be granted bail, and the understandable concerns of the State will be addressed by proper bail conditions as follows: -

Pritesh Singh this is the ruling on Bail: -

  1. The Application for Bail pending Trial is granted on the following grounds: -
  2. The parties will attend to preparing this matter for Trial

There is a right of appeal or review


Mr. Justice U. Ratuvili
Puisne Judge


cc: -The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
-Jiten Reddy Lawyers


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2024/740.html