SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 MarsdenLR 136

WONG KIM FATT
MANICKAM – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent


Advocates:
For the accused/applicant - K. Gunaretnam; M/s Gunaretnam & Co.
For the respondent - Balia Yusof, DPP

JUDGMENT

Wong Kim Fatt JC:

This is an application for bail pending trial under s. 388(i) of the Criminal Procedure Codeby the five accused jointly charged with an offence of gang-robbery under s. 395 of the Penal Code. The accused, the applicants in these proceedings, were arrested on 26 October 1981, and were eventually produced before the President, Sessions Court, Seremban, on 11 November 1981, when their application for bail was refused by the learned President. The trial of the accused was fixed on 22 and 23 March 1982, before the President. It appears that in the Sessions Court, the prosecuting officer did not object to the application for bail and that the decision of the President to refuse bail was based solely on the judgment of Abdul Razak J in Yanasengam & Ors. v. PP[1978] 1 MLJ 269 a case involving gang-robbery, in which the learned Judge dismissed the application for bail.

The answer to the matter before me depends on the interpretation of the words "imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years" appearing in s. 395 of the Penal Code.

Section 388(i) of the Criminal Procedure Codedealing with bail pending trial reads as follows:

388(i) When any person accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top