120-NLR-NLR-V-54-R.-MUTHURETTY-Petitioner-and-THE-QUEEN-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Muthuretty v. The Queen
493
Present: Swan J.
R. MUTHURETTY, Petitioner, and THE QUEEN-,Respondent
In the Matter oe an Application for Bail
S. C. 21—Kandy Sessions 3rd Circuit—M. C. Nuwara Eliya, 6,298Bail pending appeal—Complexity of case—Insufficient ground for granting bail. ,
In an application for bail pending appeal, the complexity of a case is byitself not a sufficient ground for the granting of bail.
Application for bail pending appeal to the Court of CriminalAppeal.
Issadeen Moihamed, for the petitioner.
B. T. Premaratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 9, 1953. Swan J.—
The petitioner who is the third accused in this case applies for bailpending appeal. The Crown opposes the application. The petitionerwas charged with certain others with (1) conspiracy to commit breachof trust and (2) abetment of criminal breach of trust. By an unanimousverdict the Jury found all the accused guilty on both counts, and thepetitioner was sentenced to five years’ simple imprisonment on eachcount, the sentences to run concurrently. He hag appealed againstthe conviction and sentence. The appeal I understand is listed forhearing on 27.4.1953. The grounds on which the application ismade are that this is a complicated case and that it is necessary that thepetitioner should instruct Counsel personally. The trial lasted 31 daysand about 1,000 documents were produced. The tvp e – written record
494
Ramalingam v. JCumaraswamy
runs into more than 500 pages. The petitioner states that the systGmof accounting followed in the Bank and the method of entering variousbooks and documents cannot be understood by a mere reading of theproceedings. Mr. Mohamed who appeared in support of the applicationstated that the advocate who originally defended the petitioner droppedout of the case after two days of hearing and that thereafter very juniorcounsel appeared for him.
Mr. Mohamed relies on the case of The King v. Cooray1 where WindhamJ. allowed bail. In that matter the grounds upon which bail was grantedwere—
the complexity of the case,
the ill-health of the applicant, and
that the applicant was not likely to abscond.
The petitioner does not say that he is not likely to abscond but I shalltake that for granted. With all respect to the learned Judge whoallowed bail in the above-mentioned case I would say that theimprobability of absconding would be a relevant consideration in anapplication for bail pending trial, and not in an application for bailpending appeal.
A Court will not grant bail as a rule. Bail is granted only in exceptionalcircumstances. As regards the complexity of the matters involved,learned Crown Counsel relies on a certain English case where complexitywas not regarded as an exceptional circumstance to warrant the grantingof bail. In R v. Henry Charles Ernest Hov^son and another 2 the applicationwas refused despite the fact that the case was one of great complication.I should mention that in that matter the Director of Public Prosecutionsneither supported nor opposed the application. In R v. Arthur JackKlein 3 bail was refused although it was a case of great complexity andit was urged that the prisoner’s freedom would materially assist in thepreparation of the appeal. Hewart L.C.J. in refusing the applicationsaid that this was not an exceptional circumstance.
I would follow the rule of the English Courts that the complexity ofa case is by itself an insufficient ground for the granting of bail. Theapplication is refused.
Application refused.