Chand v State [2010] FJHC 230; HAC048.2010 (2 July 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 48 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

NIRBHAY CHAND
APPLICANT

AND

STATE
RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 2 July 2010
Date of Ruling: 2 July 2010

Applicant in Person
Ms L. Tabuakuro for the State

BAIL RULING

[1] The applicant applies for bail pending trial. He has been charged with one count of aggravated robbery contrary to section 311(1)(b) of the Crimes Decree 2009 as follows:

Statement of Offence

Aggravated robbery contrary to section 311(1)(b) of the Crimes Decree 2009.

Particulars of Offence

Nirbhay Chand s/o Ram Ashre on the 24th May, 2010 at Raviravi Ba in the Western Division being armed with an offensive weapon stole 10 bundles of fish worth of (sic) about $200 from Munesh Shalvin Mani s/o Mahendra Mani.

[2] He first appeared in the Magistrates Court in Ba and asked that his plea be deferred. His application for bail in the Court below was refused and the matter transferred to this Court.

[3] The Court is of course mindful of the applicant’s right to bail (section 3) and of the presumption in favour of bail. Under section 18 of the Bail Act I must consider the likelihood of the accused surrendering to custody and appearing in Court; the interests of the accused person; and the public interest and protection of the community.

[4] The State submits that the applicant has a history of violence when drunk. He is facing another robbery charge in the Lautoka Magistracy (robbery with violence) for which he has been denied bail. It is alleged that when drunk he assaulted three women and robbed a young boy of a small amount of money. The applicant obviously has a behavioural problem after consuming alcohol and given that and his propensity for committing violent crimes rebuts the presumption in favour of bail.

[5] In the public interest and for protection of the community it would be undesirable for the applicant to be at large. The applicant tells me that he will reform, that he will no longer drink alcohol but I am not convinced by this promise.

[6] It is also of concern that the applicant endeavoured to mislead the Court. He said that his present case before the Magistracy was a minor charge of trespass when in fact it is a serious charge of robbery with violence along with a charge of assault. Such untruthfulness does not assist him in convincing the Court either that he will reform or that he will present himself to answer the charge in this Court.

[7] In the premises, bail is refused.

Paul K. Madigan
Judge

At Lautoka
2 July 2010