IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION				
									HAM NO. 50 OF 2016

BETWEEN		:	ARON AJAY SINGH 					
Applicant

AND			:	STATE			
Respondent

Counsel		:	Miss S. Nasedra for the Applicant
				Mr. S. Babitu for Respondent

Date of Hearing	:	19th of April 2016
Date of Ruling	:	6th of May 2016

Bail Ruling
1.		The Applicant files this notice of motion invoking the jurisdiction of this court 	pursuant to Section 30 (3) of the Bail Act to review the ruling delivered by the 	learned Magistrate of Lautoka, refusing the bail of the Applicant on 9th of 	February 2016. 
2.		The notice of motion is being supported by an affidavit of the Applicant, stating 	the grounds for this application. The Respondent filed an affidavit of D.C. 	Mohammed Shamim, in opposition to this application. The Applicant then filed 	an affidavit in response to the Affidavit of D.C. Mohammed Shamim. The 	Applicant then filed his submissions. However, the learned counsel for the 	Respondent advised the court that he does not wish to make any submissions 	and 	relies on the affidavit. Having carefully considered the respective 	affidavits and submissions of the Applicant, I now proceed to pronounce 	the 	ruling as follows. 
3.		The Applicant is being charged with four counts of “Obtaining Property by 	Deception” contrary to Section 317(1) and (3) of the Crimes Decree. The 	Applicant sought bail before the learned Magistrate on 30 of October 2015 on the 	same grounds as of his application for bail in CF 702 of 2015. The learned 	Magistrate having considered the submissions of the both parties, refused bail of 	the Applicant on the following grounds, inter alia;
i)	Unlikelihood of Appellant appearing in court if bail is granted as he has already being charged for absconding bail for a long period of time. 
ii)	Interest of justice, and 
iii)	 Interest of public,  
4.		The Applicant made another bail application in the Magistrate’s court on 16th of 	November 2015. The learned Magistrate in his ruling dated 09th of February 	2016, refused the bail of the Applicant on the ground that there was no special 	circumstances or facts that justify a review or the making of afresh application 	pursuant to Section 30 (7) of the Bail Act. The Applicant now files this application 	to review the said ruling of learned Magistrate dated 9th of February 2016. 
5.		In view of the affidavit of Applicant, it appears that this application is founded 	on the following grounds, that;
i)	Delay of fixing a hearing date, 
ii)	Family background, specially the education of the children, 
iii)	Effect on his business, 
iv)	Health conditions of the Applicant, 
6.		Section 14(1) of the Bail Act allows an accused person to make any number of 	bail applications. Section 30 (3) of the Bail Act has given the jurisdiction to the 	High Court to review the decision made by a Magistrate in relation to bail. 	However, Section 30 (7) of the Act states that if the court is not satisfied that there 	are special facts or circumstances that justify a review, the court could refuse to 	review the previously made bail ruling. Section 30 (10) has stipulated the scope 	of the bail review hearing, where it states that; 
“The review must be by way of a rehearing, and evidence or information given or tamed on the making of the decision may be given or obtained on review” 
7.		Having carefully considered the rulings of learned Magistrate dated 30th of 	October 2015 and 9th of February 2016 respectively, I find that the learned 	Magistrate has correctly concluded that there is no special facts or circumstances 	to justify the making of afresh bail application. The Appellant has not provided 	any special circumstances before this court, apart from stating the same grounds 	that the Learned Magistrate has considered in his ruling. 
8.		D.C. Mohammed Shamim in his affidavit in opposition states that the Applicant 	had been constantly absconded bail. The Applicant was subsequently charged 	for two counts of absconding bail in the Magistrate’s court, where he was found 	guilty and fined. In view of these facts, it appears that the presumption of bail in 	favour of the Applicant has been displaced pursuant to Section 3 (4) (a) of the 	Bail Act. Hence, I conclude that there are no special facts or circumstances to 	justify the making of this review application pursuant to Section 30 (7) of the Bail 	Act.
9.		 I accordingly refuse this application and dismiss it accordingly. I further direct 	the Learned Magistrate to provide him early hearing date as the Applicant has 	been in remand since 30th of October 2015. 
10.	Thirty (30) days for appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal. 

							R. D. R. Thushara Rajasinghe
								     Judge
At Lautoka
6th of May 2016

Solicitors	:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 
			Office of Legal Aid Commission