Kumar v State [2021] FJHC 401; HAM187.2021 (23 December 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL MISC NO. HAM 187 OF 2021

SUDHIR KUMAR

V

STATE

Date of Ruling: 23 December 2021

RULING

[1] The Accused is charged with five counts of rape against his step-daughter. He instructed private counsel of his choice to apply for bail pending trial. On 23 October 2020, I refused to grant bail to the Accused and gave written reasons for my decision (Misc No. HAM 226 of 2020).

[2] Although there has been some delay in holding the Accused’s trial due to Covid-19 pandemic, the delay is not unreasonable. The trial is now scheduled to commence on 15 April 2022.

[3] On 13 December 2021, the High Court received an application for bail made in person by the Accused. The application is made using the standard form under the Bail Act. The Accused has also attaahed a letter to the application setting out his family circumstances as the main ground for bail.

[4] Section 14 (1) of the Bail Act states that subject to subsection (3) an accuerson may make any number ober of applications to a court for bail. Subsection (3) states that the court has discretion not to entertain an application for bail if it is satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious. Section 14 (1) is read together with section 30 (7) that requires special facts or circumstances to justify a review, or the making of afresh application.

[5] Whether there are special facts or circumstances is a matter for the court to decide. As this Court said in Ho v State [2019] FJHC 820; HAM146.2019 (23 August 2019) at [8]:

The Bail Act has not defined the phrase ‘special facts’ or ‘special circumstance’ but has left it to the courts to decide on case by case basis. The word ‘special’ has been given the meaning exceptional or unusual in a number of cases. For the facts to be special they must be “peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases" (Lyon v Wilcox [1994] 3 NZLR 422, 431, 431 (CA), following the Full Court in Re M [1993] NZFLR 74). For circumstance to be special it must be exceptional, abnormal or unusual (Crabtree v Hinchliffe (Inspector of Taxes) [1971] 3 All ER 967,Lord Rerd Reid), 983 (Viscount Dilhorne)).

[6] After reading the materials provided by the Accused in support of his second application for bail, I am satisfied that the application is bound to fail. The Accused has not advanced any peculiar facts or exceptional circumstances to revisit my earlier decision on bail.

[7] The application is summarily dismissed under section 14 (3) of the Bail Act.

. ...........................................

Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

Solicitors:

ign="center">Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ions for the State.
Accused in person.