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

Devi v State [2016] FJMC 64; Criminal Case 936.2016 (8 June 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

CRMININAL CASE: 936/2016

BETWEEN : RESHMA DEVI

APPPLICANT

AND : THE STATE

RESPONDENT

For the Applicant: Mr.Chand (LAC)

For the Respondent: Cpl Shaw

Date of Hearing : 08^th of June 2016

Date of Ruling : 08^th of June 2016

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Accessory After the Fact to Murder contrary to section 238 of the Crimes Decree No 44 of 2009.
2. The accused elected this court and this morning the prosecution also informed that they would not make an application to transfer this matter to High Court.
3. In the mean time the Applicant through her counsel is applying for bail. The Prosecution is objecting and both parties made oral submission during the bail hearing.
   4. Section 03 of the Bail Act (“Act”) provides that the accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted.
   5. The presumption of granting bail to a person has to be rebutted by the State.
   6. The primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge(section 17(2) of the Act )
7. Section 19(1) of the Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-
   1. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
   2. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
   100. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult
8. In IsimeliWakaniyasi v State( 2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010),his Lordship Justice Goundar held that :

"All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".

9. The Respondent objects to bail on two grounds. The first one is that the Applicant is charged with a serious offence. Even though this can be taken in to consideration when a court is called upon to decide about the bail, the seriousness of the charge alone is not sufficient to remand a person. I am also mindful about the presumption of the innocent of the accused as guaranteed by Article 14(2) of the Constitution of Fiji which needs to consider.
10. The second ground for objection was based on the safety of the applicant which is a criterion under the Interest of the accused in Section 19(1) (b) of the Act. The prosecution contended that the based on the deceased character there would be danger to the Applicant if allowed bail from his friends. But there is no evidence to substantiate this argument and therefore I find there is no merit in this issue also.
11. Further the Applicant is a first offender and willing to provide suitable sureties to the court and therefore subject to following conditions I grant bail to her.
    1. Bail in her own recognizance in the sum of $2000.
    2. With two sureties in the sum of $1000 each.
    100. Not to interfere with the complainant and other witnesses.
    4. Not to reoffend.
    5. Report to nearest Police Station every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday from 6am to 6pm.
    6. Surrender the passport and other travel documents to the registry and also stop departure order to be issued against the applicant.
    7. Not to change the address without the permission of the court.
    8. Any breach of these conditions is likely to result in cancelation of the bail.

12.28 days to appeal

Shageeth Somaratne

Resident Magistrate