The
applicant is jointly charged with one Witness..., and Nicholas., on five counts
of armed robbery.,. The State consented to bail in respect of the two other
accused persons and opposed in respect of the applicant.
The
applicant referred me to the records in which his co-accused were granted bail.
I have gone through both records.,. In both, the State., consented to bail. The
allegations are primarily similar in all three charges, save for one allegation
in Detective Albert's., affidavit. This sole allegation distinguishes the
position of the applicant from his co-accused.
It
seems to me that it is solely on this fact that bail was opposed.,. So, the
opposition is based on abscondment.
Detective
Albert., said that when the accused was arrested "he tried to escape, which
means if granted bail he can abscond." Further, the detective alleges that the
applicant is of no fixed abode as he "neither has a house or a family." He is
said to be accommodated by some of the State witnesses. It is on this basis
that bail is opposed.
This
attempt to run away from the police is a factor that works against the applicant.
Already, the charges of armed robbery are serious. Evasion of arrest by someone
facing such serious charges is a relevant factor in bail applications.
In terms of section 116(7) of the Criminal
Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], I have a discretion to refuse bail
if I consider it likely that the accused person would not stand trial. In casu,
I am convinced that because the applicant attempted to evade arrest, if
admitted to bail, he will abscond. Accordingly, on account of the risk of
abscondment, the applicant's application must fail and the applicant is refused
bail pending trial.
