PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 1994 >> [1994] FJHC 157

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

Kapoor v The State [1994] FJHC 157; HAM0011d.94s (21 October 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


MISC. NO. HAM0011D OF 1994


Between:


VIJAY KAPOOR &
KAYLESH CHANDRA
Applicants


And


THE STATE
Respondent


Counsel: Mr. Nagin for Kapoor
Mr. Raza for Chandra
Ms. Rice for State


Hearing: 17th October 1994
Decision: 21st October 1994


ORAL DECISION OF PAIN J.
ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL


Both accused have made a further application for bail. This application was heard by me on the 17th October 1994. The matter was then adjourned until today to enable me to make appropriate enquiries regarding a fixture for the trial.


A fixture has now been arranged for the trial to commence on Tuesday the 7th of February 1995. I propose adjourning the hearing to that date. If for any reason that date is unsuitable for Counsel then the matter must be brought back before me during next week. I also indicate that as I will be out of the country, any pre-trial matter must be referred to me for consideration on Monday the 6th of February 1995.


I now consider the bail applications on the basis that a fixture has been made. I have heard previous applications for bail in this case. The last occasion was on the 28th of September 1994 when I refused a joint application by both accused. I do not intend to repeat the matters that I mentioned on that occasion. A particular matter of concern was a delay in having a hearing. At that time I gave a decision on the basis that if the trial did not proceed during the present session, then it could be expected to take place early next year. On that basis, I held that the delay was not inordinate and was no worse than is customary for others in a similar situation. I did not find any exceptional circumstance to justify the granting of bail. That position now remains unaltered. No matter has been raised before me which calls for a reconsideration of the decision I have previously made. Accordingly both applications for bail are refused.


The accused are remanded in custody to the 7th of February 1995 for hearing.


JUSTICE D.B. PAIN

HAM0011D.94S


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1994/157.html