State v Prasad [2004] FJHC 272; HAC0038D.2004S (17 December 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 038 of 2004S

STATE

-v-

SUKHENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 8^th December 2004
Ruling: 17^th December 2004

Counsel: Mr. D. Toganivalu for State
Accused in Person

RULING

The Applicant applies for bail pending trial. He has been in custody since the 9^th of September 2004 and is charged with the murder of Mohini Lata. The grounds for his application are that he suffers from gastritis and cannot be properly treated at the Korovou Remand Centre.

Before hearing further submissions, I asked for a medical report on his condition. I received one on the 8^th of December 2004. The report, prepared by a Ministry of Health doctor, states that the Applicant suffers from gastritis. He has been given medicine for his condition. The doctor recommends that his diet should be changed to non-spicy boiled food. He says that in his opinion, his condition is not serious and can be managed in prison.

The Applicant does not dispute this report, but said that the doctor had earlier, falsely, told the prosecutor that he was not suffering from any illness. He also complained about the conditions in the Sacau Dormitory.

The State opposes bail, saying that the charge is serious, the trial is likely to proceed without much delay, that the Applicant has 8 previous convictions, and that the conditions of custody are adequate.

The previous convictions date back to 1980, and except for an Assault Occasioning conviction in 1997 and a Larceny by Servant conviction in 1998, are not serious. One of the witnesses in the case is the Applicant’s daughter. The State says that it is likely that the Applicant will interfere with her and that because the Applicant has 3 alias names, he would be difficult to locate on bail.

There is a presumption in favour of bail. Relevant considerations in this case are the conditions of custody, the Applicant’s medical condition, the seriousness of the charge, the length of time he has spent in custody, and any likelihood of interference with witnesses. The paramount question is whether the Applicant will appear to stand trial.

I consider that although the Applicant has a medical condition, it can be adequately treated in prison. Further, with his previous convictions and close relationship to the main prosecution witness in this case, I consider that it is not in the public interest to grant him bail. The trial is not likely to be delayed, and all disclosure has been effected.

For these reasons, I refuse bail.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
17th December 2004