Prasad v The State [1991] FJHC 34; HAM0002d.1991s (23 April 1991)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2 OF 1991

Between:

1. LATCHMI PRASAD
s/o Bharat
2. LATCHMAMMA
d/o Maha Latchmi
3. BISUN DEO
s/o Chandrika
4. RAKESH ROSHAN PRASAD
s/o Latchmi Prasad
Applicants

v.

THE STATE
Respondent

Mr. H. Nagin for Mr. J.R. Reddy for the Applicants
Ms. N. Shameem for the Respondent

RULING
(Bail Application)

This is an application for bail pending trial in the High Court at Labasa. The applicants have been committed for trial and there is every likelihood that their trial will proceed in the next criminal sessions of the High Court to be held in Labasa on the 1st of July, 1991.

The applicants were jointly charged with Murder on Christmas day last year and with the exception of the 4th accused who was released on bail on the 30th of January 1991, all have been in custody since then i.e. 4 months.

They are all related and lived in the same household at the time of the incident. It is also common ground that the incident occurred during a period of bereavement in the family at the loss of a daughter.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the circumstances under which the killing occurred were such as to amount to severe provocation and self-defence and that this was an exceptional circumstance warranting the remaining applicants' release on bail pending trial.

With that submission this court is unable to agree. The applicants are jointly charged with Murder without differentiation. Any attempt at this stage to delimit their respective roles in the incident would be premature in the absence of all the evidence which includes "eye-witnesses".

More importantly it would improperly undermine the prosecution's case and usurp the assessors' functions at the trial.

Similar observations may be made in regard to the circumstances in which the deceased met his death.

In this latter regard it is noteworthy that the deceased was assaulted with sticks and sustained multiple injuries to his body and severe head injuries. Needless to say State Counsel upon a perusal of the relevant police docket states that as presently advised it is unlikely that the charge will be reduced to one of Manslaughter.

In the circumstances having carefully considered the opposing affidavits this court can see no good reason to depart from the well-established "rule" that bail is granted only in exceptional cases where the charge is Murder.

The applications are accordingly refused.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
23rd April, 1991.

HAM0002D.91S