Turagadamudamu v State [2014] FJMC 62; Criminal Case 1493.2009 (24 April 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 1493/2009

BETWEEN:

SEVANAIA TURAGADAMUDAMU
APPPLICANT

AND:

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Applicant in person
PC Josuha for the State
Date of Hearing: 24th April 2014
Date of Ruling: 24th April 2014

RULING ON BAIL

1. The applicant is charged with one count of Larceny contrary to section 259(2) and 262(2) of the Penal Code and one count of Resisting Arrest contrary to section 247(b) of the Penal Code.
   
2. The applicant filed this application seeking bail. This Court earlier granted bail but as the applicant failed to appear his bail was cancelled. The applicant submitted a memorandum to show that he was in remand during that time.
   
3. According to the applicant the reasons for bail were that he has no other pending cases and he has no history of absconding bail. This was never disputed by the State in their response.
   
4. The State objected to application on the grounds of public interest and the offence was serious and prevalent.
   
5. Section 03 of the Bail Act of 2002 provides that the accused person has a right to be released on bail unless it is not in the interest of justice that bail should be granted. The presumption of granting bail to a person could be rebutted by the party who oppose to it and in this case the State has to rebut that.
   
6. Section 17(2) of the Act stipulates that the primary consideration in granting bail is the accused person appearing in the Court to answer the charge.
   
7. Section 19(1) of the Bail Act outlines the reasons for refusing bail and they are as follows:-
   
   1. The accused person is unlikely to surrender to custody and appear in court to answer the charges laid;
      
   2. The interest of the accused person will not be served through the granting of bail; or
      
   100. Granting bail to the accused would endanger the public interest or make protection of the community more difficult
        
8. In Isimeli Wakaniyasi v State (2010),FJHC 20;HAM 120/2009 (29th January 2010), His Lordship Justice Goundar held that "All three grounds need not exist to justify refusal of bail, existence of any one grounds is sufficient to refuse bail".
   
9. I have considered the bail application and the response filed by the State. I find that only ground to refuse bail is the seriousness of the offence. But that is not enough. The accused has no history of absconding bail or breaching bail.
   
10. Based on the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the prosecution has satisfied any of the grounds mentioned in section 19(1) of the Bail Act.
    
11. Therefore subject to following conditions I grant bail to the Applicant.
    
    1. Bail in his own recognizance in the sum of $300
       
    2. With a surety in the sum of $300
       
    100. Not to interfere with the complainant and other witnesses
         
    4. Not to reoffend
       
    5. Report to Samabulla Police Station every Saturday between 8am to 6pm.
       
12. 28 days to appeal
    

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva