The
applicant was denied bail by OMERJEE J on 19 May 2010. He now applies for bail on
the basis of changed circumstances.
The
previous application was dismissed on the basis of the gravity of the offence,
and that the applicant was interfering with investigations through an
unidentified third party. The anonymous third party is alleged to have sent
threatening text messages to the Investigating Officer. It is also alleged that
there has been an attempt to corrupt the Investigating Officer by offering him
a bribe of US$45,000=. The State has since tendered in evidence a schedule of
the alleged text messages together with an affidavit from the Investigating Officer.
In
his affidavit, the Investigating Officer confirms that he is still being
interfered with.
When
the court denied the applicant bail it urged the police to wind up their
investigations. It further directed the State to investigate the applicant's alibi
defence to the effect that he was at work when the offence was allegedly
committed. As a result of those further investigations, the State has now
tendered a duty roster from the applicant's work place tending to show that he
was not at work at the material time.
The
State has also tendered a statement by Detective Inspector Zuze stating that
the applicant was positively identified by the complainant.
The
applicant's trial is imminent as the docket has since been sent to the Magistrate's
Court for set down of the trial date.
It
was further submitted by the defence that the applicant is a flight risk as the
prospect of a long term of imprisonment may prompt him to flee from the court's
jurisdiction.
The
defence has countered that the end of justice will not be compromised because
no link has been established between the sender of the alleged text messages
and the applicant. It has been pointed out that the text messages might have
been sent by someone who does not have the interest of the applicant at heart.
Counsel
for the applicant sought to explain the duty roster by saying that the
applicant was not marked present on the duty roster because his group had
arrived late at work on that day.
That
may very well be so but the fact still remains that documentary evidence at the
State's disposal clearly marks him as being absent at the material time. The State
has further pointed out that the applicant was no longer stationed at Bulawayo
at the time he claims to have been on duty at that station. At this juncture,
such evidence can only serve to strengthen the State Case; if, however, the
applicant has an innocent explanation; that is for the trial court to
determine.
As
things stand right now it is clear that events have changed for the worse for
the applicant. For that reason, the application cannot succeed.
It is accordingly ordered that the application
be and is hereby dismissed.
