Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Prasad [2005] FJHC 42; HAC0038D.2004S (28 February 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC0038 of 2004S

STATE

v.

SUKHENDRA PRASAD
s/o Karan Singh

Hearing: 25th February 2005
Ruling: 28th February 2005

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Accused in Person

RULING

This is another bail application from the Accused. It is made on the same grounds as his previous applications, but he now claims that his dietary requirements are not being met by the Korovou Prison. He undertakes not to interfere with his daughter, who is the main prosecution witness.

The State opposes bail. Counsel called Chief Prison Officer Waisake Qalo, who gave evidence that the Accused’s diet had been changed in accordance with the medical report to non-spicy boiled food, but that the Accused chose to eat the spicy food instead. The Accused cross-examined the officer but did not dispute that he was on a special diet. He said that he did not like the dhal served and was missing his meals.

Unfortunately, I cannot assist him with his preferred diet. He is now getting a special diet on the doctor’s orders, and cannot demand some other diet because he does not like the food served. The prison service is a disciplined service, which operates in accordance with rules and regulations. The Accused, whilst in remand, must eat what is offered and what the doctor recommended. Certainly his complaints do not give rise to an argument that he is in inhumane conditions.

Further, the protection of the prosecution witness who is only 12 years old, is an important public interest factor. I consider that in all the circumstances, the Accused should continue in remand.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
28th February 2005