R. v. Ally and Another Misc. Crim. Cause 3-Musoma-72, 3/3/73, Kisanga, Ag. J.

 

R. v. Ally and Another Misc. Crim. Cause 3-Musoma-72, 3/3/73, Kisanga, Ag. J.

The application for bail was first lodged in the Resident Magistrate’s court which refused it, hence the application to the High Court. The two applicants were jointly charged with stealing by servant c/s 271 and 265 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that the applicants who were employed by the State Trading Corporation as store keepers stole some 100 corrugated iron sheets valued at Shs. 996/= being the property of their employer. The Republic opposed the application on the sole ground that the investigation was incomplete and that if the applicants were released they would interfere with that investigation. It was further stated that there was strong likelihood that the applicants would be charged with stealing property valued as much as Shs. 40,000/= and therefore the application should be denied until the investigation had been completed.

            Held: (1) “When the court is called upon to exercise its discretion whether or not to admit an accused person to bail, I think it should exercise that discretion with reference only to the nature of the offence stated in the information and the allegations contained therein. I am therefore of the view that it would not be competent to consider the allegation by the persecution that it is likely that the applicants will be charged with stealing large amounts of property in the tune of Shs. 40,000/-. To my mind such an allegation is too vague almost amounting to speculation, and the court could not take cognizance of it in as much as there is no mention of it in the information.” (2) “As stated earlier the charge is that of stealing by servant property valued at Shs. 996/=. When the application was before the lower court both applicants stated that the property alleged to have been stolen is in the hands of the Police, and this was not denied by the prosecution. As far as the charge stand, therefore, the contention by the prosecution that the applicants would interfere with investigation if released on bail is untenable because the property is already recovered; and even if those 100 corrugated iron sheets had not been recovered that would not in my opinion be sufficient ground on which to refuse the application.” (3) “In the circumstances, therefore, I would allow the application. The matter is remitted back to the lower court with a direction to admit the applicants to bail on such terms and condition as that court may think fit.”