CHEDA J: This is an application for bail
pending trial.
The
respondent opposed the application on the basis that if released on bail,
applicant is likely to abscond and that despite the fact that his co-accused
has been admitted to bail, his circumstances were different.
Applicant
is facing an allegation of robbery. It
is alleged that on the 14th of July 2011 at around 2115 hours, he
together with his co-accused hatched a plan to rob a taxi. They stopped a taxi cab along Herbert Chitepo
Street,Bulawayo posing as genuine passengers.
The driver who is the complainant
believed them and offered them the taxi services. He drove them towards Sizinda Township with
applicant sitting on the front passenger seat.
When
they got to the robot at the intersection of Nketa Drive and Sizinda Road, his
co-accused pretended to alight from the vehicle, the driver then stopped the
vehicle. Upon stopping the vehicle he
was attacked by the applicant and his co-accused. Applicant pulled him out of the vehicle and
drove away, leaving complainant stranded.
Applicant was involved in an accident and was subsequently
arrested.
Applicant's
argument in support of his application is that the seriousness of the offence
on its own is not enough reason to deprive him of his right to the admission of
bail. This infact is now the settled legal
position
Further,
that he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty by a competent
court. Applicant is indeed presumed
innocent at this stage. For that reason
these courts will always lean in favour of the liberty of an individual against
the deprivation of his liberty.
The
only time the courts will show some reluctance is when his liberation will most
likely result in the interference and/or frustration of the proper
administration of justice.
In
casu applicant's role in the alleged commission of the crime need to be
carefully examined in order to come out with an equitable determination.
I
agree with applicant that the seriousness of a crime without other factors is
not enough reason to deprive him of his liberty, regard being had to the time
honoured presumption of innocence.
Appellant was arrested in possession of the motor vehicle which he had
forcibly taken away from the complainant whom he left behind together with his
accomplice.
This,
no doubt, heavily implicates him and to me is enough reason to serve as an
incentive for him to abscond. He is
aware that he will have to explain the circumstances surrounding his possession
of the said motor vehicle.
In
my view, if the overwhelming evidence against him will not compel him to abscond,
then nothing else will. I am aware that
his accomplice has been admitted to bail by this court. However, their alleged involvement is clearly
distinguishable, making him more culpable than his accomplice, at least prima
facie.
In
my view applicant has more questions to answer in order to extricate himself
from this alleged criminal web which he has entangled himself in.
The
consequences of his release on bail are too ghastly to contemplate, as they
will no doubt result in his sure abscondment thereby failing to appear in court
for trial.
The
application is dismissed.
Advocate S.K.M. Sibanda and partners, appellant's
legal practitioners
Criminal Division, Attorney
General's Office, respondent's legal practitioners
