Clement Skinner JC:

On 3 December 1998, Leow Nyuk Chin (hereinafter the accused) was brought before me, charged with the offence of murder under s. 302 Penal Code (PC) . Earlier on the same day, the Batu Gajah magistrate's court had made an order, pursuant to s. 177A Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), transmitting her case for trial by the High court.

On her appearing, the charge under s. 302 PC was read over and explained to the accused.The charge reads as follows:

Bahawa kamu LEOW NYOK CHIN (P) KP. NO: 400929-08-5182 pada 22 July 1998 diantara jam lebih kurang 10.00 malam hingga 10.30 malam di dalam rumah No. 9 Jalan Lebuh Sayang 2, Taman Sayang, Batu Gajah, di dalam Daerah Kinta, di Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan, telah melakukan pembunuhan ke atas CHAN KIEW @ CHIN KIEW (L) KP. NO. 420403-08-5135, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh di hukum di bawah Sek. 302 Kanun Keseksaan.

On the accused confirming she understood the charge, her plea was taken.She claimed trial to the charge. I then fixed her trial to commence on 26 April 1999 till 30 April 1999.

Mr. Hira Singh (hereinafter learned counsel) who represents the accused then made an oral application for bail on her behalf. I summarise below the arguements put forward by learned counsel

First, the facts and personal circumstances relevant to her application for bail.The accused is 58 years old.She is accused of murdering her husband and voluntarily surrendering herself to the police on 23 July 1998.She is an excivil servant, having served from 1 January 1963 until her retirement on 1 March 1994 as a school teacher.She married the deceased in 1966 and from the marriage there are four children.Her personal and married life has not been without its trials and tribulations.It is submitted on her behalf that she has had to suffer the ways of a philandering husband and bear the pain, anxiety and humilation that brings.She has contributed financially to her husband's business and the children's education as a result of which his business expanded and the children received good education, including going overseas for the same.In a nutshell, the accused enjoys good standing in society and is a person of good character.

Next, the law.Learned counsel submits that the liberty assured to every individual by art. 5 of the Federal Constitution, should be given effect to by the grant of bail to the accused pursuant to s. 388(i) CPC. This section provides that bail is only to be refused in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of such offence.However, in this case, the prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence or place any facts before the court to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of the offence.In reply to the submission of the learned DPP that the charge and the consent of the Public Prosecutor are sufficient for that purpose, learned counsel submits that when the charge is looked at, it does not contain any particulars from which it can be said there appears reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of the offence.According to learned counsel, the consent of the Public Prosecutor to the institution of these proceedings also suffers from the same infirmity.

In contrast to the inability of the prosecution to show reasonable grounds, learned counsel submits that even at this stage of the proceedings, there are reasons to believe that the accused may never be convicted of the offence charged.Such reasons are afforded first, by the cautioned statement made by the accused to the effect that she had no inclination of what happened on the night of the incident, and second, by a medical report on the state of mind of the accused, issued by Hospital Bahagia on 30 October 1998 which negates any grounds, if they exist, for believing the accused is guilty of the offence charged.The accused is therefore clearly eligible to