IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA 
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 292/2014 
BETWEEN		:		MUKESH NAIDU 
APPPLICANT
AND			:		FIJI COMMERCE COMMISSION 
RESPONDENT
For the Applicant:Mr.A.Singh and Mr.D.Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.Lagilevu
Date of Ruling     :  14th of December 2016
													
RULING ON BAIL

1.	The applicant is charged with one count of Refusing or Failing to Furnish Information contrary to section 119(4) (a) of the Commerce Commission Decree (“Decree”), one count of Misleading or Deceptive conduct contrary to section 75(1) of the Decree, one count of False or Misleading Representation contrary to section 79(1) of the Decree and one count of Accepting payments without being able to supply contrary to 88 of the Decree.
2.	His previous bail application has been rejected by this court (ruling dated 18th of October 2016).
3.	Now he has filed a new bail application seeking bail. The reasons for the bail are deterioration medical condition of the applicant and the lack of facilities in the correction center to treat him in an emergency. 
4.	The respondent is objecting for the bail and filed affidavit in response of Mr.Prakesh Singh. 
5.	Section 14 of the Bail Act (“Act”) states that the accused person may make any number of bail applications to the court. 
6.	Part VIII of the Act deals with the review of the bail and section 30(2) states a court can review its own bail decision or another court decision. 
7.	But when reviewing or hearing a new bail application, the court has to satisfy there are special facts or circumstances that justify a review or hearing the new application (section 30(7) of the Act). 
8.	If the court is not satisfied, the court can refuse to hear the application. 
9.	Having considered the applicable law in the above manner, now I turn to this application. The main grounds for this fresh application are his health conditions and lack of facilities to treat that in the correction center. 
10.	In their application, the applicant has also annexed a report from Dr. E.Tamanitoakula, Senior medical officer of Fiji Correction Service, who has stated that the applicant is known case of Ischmic Heart Disease, hypertension and urinary retention and has a heart condition which makes him vulnerable to heart attack anytime in the day. The Suva remand has not adequate facilities to attend emergencies of such nature and put his life to risk. Based on that the doctor has recommended that he needs to be granted bail. 
11.	During the bail hearing apart from submissions from both parties this doctor was also called to give evidence. Even though he has not examined the applicant, he has given evidence about the medical conditions of the applicant after perusing the records from the CWM hospital. 
12.	The objections of the respondent are based on number of pending matters in the Court and failure of the applicant to appear previously in the Court. Further the respondent submits that the applicant may interfere with prosecution witnesses and also the sureties the applicant is providing are not suitable. 
13.	In my view these objections can be addressed with strict bail conditions. Even though there is no dispute that previously the applicant was absconding from this Court, based on the medical grounds and report of prison doctor, I find there is a special circumstance present at this time to review my previous bail ruling and enlarge the applicant on bail. 
14.	Hence subject to following conditions , I grant bail to the applicant :
a.	Cash bail of $10,000.00 ;
b.	With two sureties  in the sum of $50,000.00  each;
c.	Not to interfere with the complainant and other witnesses;
d.	Not to reoffend ;
e.	Report to   nearest   Police Station Every Monday , Wednesday and Friday from 8am-6pm;
f.	Surrender the passport and other travel documents to the registry. 
g.	Not to change the  address  ;
h.	Any breach of these conditions is likely to result in cancelation of the bail.
15.	28 days to appeal 
Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate