N11538

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

BA NO. 648 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF BAIL APPLICATIONS BY MOSES GANIM

MADANG: NAROKOBI J
14, 20 OCTOBER 2025

BAIL – nature of right to bail – Constitution, Section 42(6) – Bail Act, Section 4, 6 and 9 – exercise of discretion whether to grant bail.

The applicant has been charged under s 300 of the Criminal Code for murder. The allegation is that on 18 January 2025, the Applicant murdered his wife using a sharp object. He was committed to stand trial on 31 July 2025. He offers the following reasons for bail – he is sick, as he has contracted malaria and diarrhea, cell blocks have reached their maximum capacity, there is shortage of food, he has been assaulted by fellow inmates and his life is at risk and he pledges K1,000.00 bail.

Held

Bail is refused as the interest of justice does not require the grant of bail because of the existence of the factors stipulated in s 9 of the Bail Act, in that the alleged offence involves serious assault and the use of offensive weapons. The reasons raised for bail can be attended to by the Correctional Institution. 

Cases cited
Fred Keating v The State [1983] PNGLR 133 
Kange v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2016) SC1562

Counsel
C Momoi, for the applicant
J Kasse, for the State

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

1.	NAROKOBI J: The applicant applies for bail under ss 4 and 6(1) of the Bail Act Ch 340 and s 42(6) of the Constitution.

2.	The bail application is strongly opposed by the State.

3.	The applicant has been charged under s 300 of the Criminal Code for murder. The allegation is that on 18 January 2025, the Applicant murdered his wife using a sharp object. He was committed to stand trial on 31 July 2025.

4.	Section 42(6) of the Constitution states:

“ (6) A person arrested or detained for an offence (other than treason or wilful murder as defined by an Act of the Parliament) is entitled to bail at all times from arrest or detention to acquittal or conviction unless the interests of justice otherwise require”. 

5.	Section 42(6) states that a person is entitled to bail, unless the interests of justice dictates otherwise. Of course, this right does not apply for person charged with treason or wilful murder.

6.	Section 4 of the Bail Act provides for the type of offences a person is charged with that only the National Court or Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear.

7.	Section 6 of the Bail Act allows an applicant to apply for bail at any time following detention.

8.	Section 9 of the Bail Act states that the bail authority shall not refuse bail unless one of the following conditions exist:
•	that the person in custody is unlikely to appear at his trial if granted bail;
•	that the offence with which the person has been charged was committed whilst the person was on bail;
•	that the alleged act or any of the alleged acts constituting the offence in respect of which the person is in custody consists or consist of- 

i.	a serious assault; or
ii.	a threat of violence to another person; or
iii.	having or possessing a firearm, imitation firearm, other offensive weapon or explosive;

•	that the person is likely to commit an indictable offence if he is not in custody;
•	it is necessary for the person's own protection for him to be in custody;
•	that the person is likely to interfere with witnesses or the person who instituted the proceedings;
•	that the alleged offence involves property of substantial value that has not been recovered and the person if released would make efforts to conceal or otherwise deal with the property;
•	that there are, in progress or pending, extradition proceedings made under the Extradition Act 1975 against the person in custody;
•	that the alleged offence involves the possession, importation or exportation of a narcotic drug other than for the personal medical use under prescription only of the person in custody;
•	that the alleged offence is one of breach of parole.

9.	In the case of Keating v The State [1983] PNGLR 133, the Supreme Court held that the bail Court still has a discretion, even if one of the conditions set out in s 9 of the Bail Act exists.

10.	The applicant applies for bail for the following reasons:

•	He is sick, as he has contracted malaria and diarrhea.
•	Cell blocks have reached their maximum capacity.
•	There is shortage of food.
•	He has been assaulted by fellow inmates and his life is at risk.
•	He pledges K1,000.00 bail.
•	He will reside at 4 Mile Tais Settlement, Madang town, Madang Province, during the course of the trial.
•	Their guarantors are responsible persons.

11. The State submits that bail should not be granted because of the following reasons:

•	Inspector Clement Bandiniaka at Beon Correctional Institution, the second in command has deposed to the fact that there is sufficient food ration, medical clinic to treat illness like malaria, and enough bed space for inmates. Serious medical conditions are referred to Modilon General Hospital.
•	The alleged offence consists of threats of violence to another person.

12.	   Further, the State relies on the case of Kange v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2016) SC1562 and submits that issues of threats of assault, intimidations, harassments, or personal injury or death to a prisoner or a remandee by other prisoners or remandees is not a circumstance that warrants the grant of bail but appropriate measures to be taken by the Correction Services.

13.	   After considering the Applicant’s reasons and the State’s response, I am not persuaded that I should grant bail for the following reasons:

•	The alleged offence involves serious assault.
•	Threat of violence to another person.
•	Possession of offensive weapon.
•	Malaria and diarrhea are diseases that can be treated at the correctional institution’s clinic.

14.	     The Application for bail is refused.

15.	      The Applicant is at liberty to apply for bail, if his circumstances change. 

16.	     Ruling accordingly.
__________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the applicant: Public Solicitor
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor