Kumar v State - Ruling [2014] FJHC 240; HAM001.2014 (10 March 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Criminal Miscellaneous No: HAM 001 of 2014

BETWEEN:

1. RITESH RINAY KUMAR
2. AMLA WATI
The Applicants

AND:

THE STATE
The Respondent

Counsel: Mr. S. Sharma for the Applicants
Mr. S. Vodokisolomone for the State

Date of Hearing: 10 March 2014
Date of Ruling: 10 March 2014

RULING

[1] The applicants, Ritesh Kumar and Amla Wati apply for bail pending trial. They are jointly charged with attempted murder of a new born infant. The mother of the infant is also charged but had not applied for bail. Amla Wati is a sickly and elderly woman. Ritesh Kumar is a young man with a fixed job at FFI. They have no previous convictions.

[2] The State opposes the application. The grounds for objection are contained in the affidavit of Detective Constable Aisea Francis.

[3] The presumption, of course, is in favour of grant of bail. The State carries the burden to rebut that presumption.

[4] The first ground for objection is that the applicants are charged with a serious offence of attempted murder. I accept that the applicants are charged with a serious offence, and if convicted, they are facing a lengthy prison sentence. But I also bear in mind that the presumption of innocence applies to the charge and the seriousness of the charge alone cannot be the basis to refuse bail.

[5] The second ground for objection is that the investigation is incomplete. The applicants were caution interviewed on or about 11 December 2013. It is now nearly three months since the applicants were arrested and the prosecution had ample opportunity to complete all the pending investigation or to gather evidence.

[6] The third ground for objection is that the applicants are likely to interfere with the prosecution witnesses. No evidence has been led by the State as to who these witnesses are and the nature of their testimony, to make an assessment whether the applicants can potentially interfere with the evidence.

[7] The grounds for objection are indeed broad and vague. Objection has been raised on the public interest ground but no evidence has been led of any matters for this Court to make an assessment on such ground.

[8] The State has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of grant of bail. I therefore allow the application and grant both applicants bail on the following conditions:

[1] Both applicants to provide a surety to sign a bond of $1000.00 each.

[2} Both applicants to reside at a fixed residential address and not to change that address without the leave of the Court.

[3] Both applicants to surrender their travelling documents at the High Court Registry.

[4] Not to interfere with the prosecution witnesses.

[5] Attend all court hearings.

Daniel Goundar
Judge

At Labasa
Tuesday 11 March 2014

Solicitors:
Office of Messrs Samusamuvodre Sharma Law, Labasa for Applicants
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Labasa for State