IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal case No s 665/07, 819/08,
09/10, 43/10

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

SAI GOUNDER

RULING

The second accused in case no 43/10 namely Sai Gounder made a bail application on the 03rd march 2010 and it was informed to court that same bail application is made with regard to case No s 09/10, 819/08 and 665/07.

The accused said in his bail application that he has been already bailed out from Nadi courts and he has never breached bail conditions. Further he said he was never arrested on Bench Warrants. He said that he will not re offend and that he may be released on strict bail conditions.

The prosecution objected for bail saying that the accused has five cases pending and informed court that the accused came on fresh charges after he was initially granted bail.

Every accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interests of justice that bail should not be granted according to Section 3 of the Bail Act.

According to the provisions in the Bail Act there is a presumption in favour of granting bail. But the Section 3(4) of the Bail Act says that the presumption in favour of the granting bail is displaced where the person seeking bail has previously breached a bail undertaking or bail condition.

To ascertain wether the accused has breached bail conditions I have perused all files against the accused in this court.

The accused has been initially charged on the 02nd October 2007 in Case no 665/07 for shop breaking and larceny and resisting arrest allegedly committed on the 01st October 2007. The accused was granted bail on the same day he was charged.

Although the accused said that he was not arrested on Bench Warrants, on the 19th February 2008 a bench warrant had been issued for non appearance. On the 22nd February 2008 the Bench Warrant was cancelled. Again on the 17th April 2008 a Bench Warrant had been issued and was cancelled on the 16th May 2008. Once again a Bench Warrant is issued on the 16th may 2008 for non appearance and it had been cancelled on the same day. 

On the 14th August 2008 the accused was charged in Case no 521/08 for shop breaking entering and larceny allegedly committed on the 05th-6th of July 2008 whilst on bail. However the accused is enlarged on bail on the 14th August 2008.

Again on the 12th November 2008 the accused was charged in Case no 819/08 for shop breaking with intent to commit felony allegedly committed on the 09th November 2008 whilst on bail. The accused was again enlarged on bail on the 26th November 2008 with curfew to remain indoors from 5 pm to 6 am every day.

On the 6th January 2010 the accused was charged again in the Case no 09/10 for shop breaking entering and larceny. On the 20th January 2008 accused was charged again in the case no 43/10 for shop breaking entering with intent to commit larceny. Both offences were allegedly committed between the 26th December 2009 and 28th December 2009 whilst on bail in three previous cases.

Although the accused said that he has never breached bail conditions it is very clear that he has been charged in new cases for offences allegedly committed whilst on bail. Further it does not appear that the accused has complied with the bail conditions regarding curfew. 

I have considered the aspects that the court has to consider in a bail determination according to the provisions in Sections 18 and 19.

The accused is charged with serious charges and it is likely for the court to impose severe punishments if he is convicted. It appears that the accused has been brought before this court for four cases after he was initially granted bail in the Case no 665/07. Further it appears that the accused had disregarded the bail conditions imposed in previous instances.

The court has to consider the interest of the public in deciding matters in cases of this nature and has to ensure the safety of the members in the society too.

The accused has not mentioned any matter pertaining to the interests of the accused in his bail application. 

In these circumstances I cannot be satisfied that the accused would abide by the bail conditions even if he is granted bail again. Therefore I refuse the bail applications made by the accused Sai Gounder in the case no 665/07, 819/08,09/10 and 43/10.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka
30.03.2010.