Patel v. R. Misc. Crim. Causes No. 24-D-71; 20/9/71; Biron, J.

Patel v. R. Misc. Crim. Causes No. 24-D-71; 20/9/71; Biron, J.

Applicant was charged on six counts of offences against the Exchange Control Ordinance. He applied for bail on the day when he appeared in court in answer to the charge. Bail was refused o the ground that the accused might not be available to stand his trial. The magistrate also took into account the seriousness of the offence and his chances of leaving the country for he had correspondents in Europe, Canada and India. The accused then applied to the High Court for bail, not as an appeal against the Magistrate’s order, but as a separate and distinct application.

Held: (1) [A] man whilst awaiting trial is as of right entitled to bail, as there is a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved. In this instant case I accept that the accused is a man of good character. Good standing, even of substance.” (2) “I would say that the court should be guided by four main principles [on the granting of bail pending trial]. The first and foremost is that the court should ask itself whether the accused would be available at the trial. Another principle which the court should consider is whether the accused is likely to commit further offence if he is allowed out on bail in which case his character is certainly not irrelevant. A further principle …….. is whether the accused is likely to interfere with the investigation by influencing witnesses or otherwise, and [Finally] the gravity of the accusation and the severity of the punishment if conviction results, as to whether that in itself would prompt an accused ………….. to jump his bail.” (3) “The first and foremost principle [in this case] is the availability of the accused when h is due to come up for trial ………….. And that is really the sale consideration. There is …………….. no likelihood [that the accused would commit another offence whilst on bail]. The only question is, will he or will he not be available to stand trial?” [After reviewing the evidence contained in the accuseds affidavits and a cross-affidavit the learned Judge ruled:] “However much it goes against the grain, I find myself in the position that I cannot resist Mr. Tampi’s submission that the Republic’s apprehension that the accused may not be present to stand his trial is well grounded, so that in such case the court, I am sorry to say, is constrained to uphold such submission.” (4) Bail refused.