State v Prasad [2010] FJMC 52; Criminal Case 278 of 2010 (21 May 2010)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Criminal Case No 278/10

BETWEEN

THE STATE

AND

ANAND KUMAR PRASAD

RULING

1. The accused is charged with two counts of Presenting counterfeit note contrary to section 166(1)(b) . The offences are alleged to have been committed on the 11th May 2010.
   
2. When the accused was produced before the court on the 14th May 2010 the counsel who appeared for the accused made an application for bail on behalf of the accused.
   
3. The State Counsel who appeared for the prosecution objected for bail saying that the accused has committed this offence whilst on bail in a High Court case. Prosecution said if bail is granted there is a likelihood that the accused will re offend. It was further informed that the accused is wanted for cases in Nadi and Sigatoka. The state counsel stated that one of the witnesses is known to the accused and the prosecution fears interference. The State Counsel said that the accused has admitted the offence in his confession.
   
4. The counsel for the accused said it was not shown why they fear for interference and she said that her client is not aware of any cases in Nadi or Sigatoka. It was informed on behalf of the accused that the accused will appear in court if granted bail and that he is not a threat to the community.
   
5. However the case was adjourned to the following day for the prosecution to furnish a report to satisfy the court that the accused have breached bail conditions previously. The prosecution tendered a copy of the bail order in the High Court case on the 18th May 2010. Accordingly it appears that the High Court has imposed a bail condition on the accused not to re offend and to be of good behaviour.
   
6. The prosecution further objected for bail on new developments saying that the police have found more forged notes and further investigations need to be done.
   
7. The Counsel for the accused said that just because a complaint is made against her client it does not mean that he breached bail conditions and he is not convicted in this case to say that he has re offended.
   
8. The Bail Act says that every accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should not be granted. Further the Act says that there is a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to a person.
   
9. Thus it is clearly discernible that the rule is to grant bail and the exception would be to refuse bail. However the Bail Act stipulates instances where this presumption is displaced.
   
10. According to Section 3(4), the presumption in favour of the granting bail is displaced where the person seeking bail has previously breached a bail undertaking or bail condition.
    
11. It is pertinent to see whether the accused have breached any bail conditions at this juncture. The prosecution informed court that the accused have been bailed out in a case pending in the High Court, on one condition being to be of good behaviour and not to commit any offence whilst on bail.
    
12. The contention of the Counsel who appeared for the accused was that although a complaint is made against the accused he is not found guilty for any offence whilst on bail. It should be noted that for the purposes of the bail act it would not be prudent to expect a person to be found guilty for the provisions of the bail act to be applicable. A person is remanded in custody not as a punishment but as a measure to avoid any impediment to the administration of justice.
    
13. Therefore when there is a bail condition imposed not to re offend I do not believe it is necessary for him to be found guilty of an offence committed whilst on bail to consider him to have breached that bail condition. If the court has to wait until such person is found guilty the purpose of the provisions of the Bail act would be lost. Besides Bail act applies not only to convicts but mainly to persons who are arrested for, or charged with an offence.
    
14. It appears that if the prosecution establishes that a person is arrested for or charged with an offence whilst on bail that fact is prima facie sufficient for the court to be satisfied that such person has committed an offence whilst on bail for the purposes of the bail act.
    
15. Therefore I decide that the presumption in favour of granting bail is displaced as far as this accused is concerned.
    
16. The charges laid against the accused are serious in nature and the maximum punishment would be seven years for each count. The prosecution informed that the accused has admitted the offence and it appears the prosecution has a strong case. Already the accused has a pending case in the High Court and the prosecution informed court that he is wanted for other cases in different jurisdictions. Further it was informed after producing for this case more cases are being transpired. In the circumstances I believe it is unlikely that he would surrender to custody if he is granted bail.
    
17. The accused is represented by a counsel and it appears he will not be deprived from obtaining legal advice. It was not brought to the notice of court about his personal circumstances which could be hampered if he is remanded in custody. Apparently I did not see any circumstances which compel the court to grant bail considering the interests of the accused person.
    
18. The prosecution informed court that there is a fear that he might interfere with the witnesses as one witness is known to him. The accused is charged with a serious offence and now it appears it is not a single and isolated incident of presenting counterfeit notes. There seems to be a likelihood that the accused could commit offences while he is on bail. Introducing counterfeit notes to the money circulation definitely hampers the public interest.
    
19. For the above reasons I refuse to grant bail to the accused.
    

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate

Lautoka
21.05.2010.