Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v Public Prosecutor

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date31 March 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 57
Citation[2006] SGHC 57
Published date06 April 2006
Plaintiff CounselLau Wing Yum and Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
Defendant CounselS K Kumar (S K Kumar & Associates)
Subject MatterCriminal Procedure and Sentencing,Bail,Application for bail to be reduced,Purposes behind granting bail,Whether quantum of bail was reasonable amount

31 March 2006

Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The applicant was charged with four charges under s 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1997 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), one charge under s 5(2) and 34 abetment charges under s 5(1) of the Act. Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) read as follows:

5(1) No person shall employ a foreign worker unless he has obtained in respect of the foreign worker a valid work permit which allows the foreign worker to work for him.

(2) No foreign worker shall be in the employment of an employer without a valid work permit.

(3) No person shall employ a foreign worker otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the work permit.

2 The maximum penalty for an offence under s 5(1) is a penalty amounting to “not less than 24 months’ levy and not more than 48 months’ levy or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both”. The penalty for an offence under s 5(2) is a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or to both. The penalty for an offence under s 5(3) is a fine of up to $5,000.

3 The applicant was first charged in court on 15 March 2006 and was released on bail of $40,000 in one surety on 20 March 2006. Three days later, on 23 March 2006, the Prosecution charged him with the 34 charges under s 5(1). Bail was increased to $100,000 in one surety. The applicant was unable to raise bail and had been in remand again since 23 March 2006. He made this application for bail to be reduced to $50,000 in one surety. Mr Kumar, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant earned $1,000 a month as a director of a company that is in the business of recruiting Bangladeshi workers. He denied the charges and stated that he had a valid defence under s 25 of the Act in that he was not the actual offender, and also that he was not in Singapore when the offences under the abetment charges had been allegedly committed. It is, of course, not the function of this court to weigh the merits of his defence, but only to consider whether it was a plausible one. Counsel also submitted that the applicant had no intention of absconding, and that although he was initially released for a few days on $40,000 bail he dutifully returned to court to face the additional 34 charges.

4 The two major issues in bail cases are first, whether bail ought to be granted, and secondly, if so, the appropriate amount of bond to be provided, and other conditions to be added, if necessary. The first issue was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 September 2007
    ...be deprived of his personal liberty until he has been convicted and sentenced (see, in this regard, Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v PP [2006] SGHC 57 at [5]). Put another way, the bail mechanism represents the best compromise between two apparently irreconcilable goals: the right to liberty......
  • Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 September 2007
    ...be deprived of his personal liberty until he has been convicted and sentenced (see, in this regard, Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v PP [2006] SGHC 57 at [5]). Put another way, the bail mechanism represents the best compromise between two apparently irreconcilable goals: the right to liberty......
  • Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 August 2011
    ...Tiwary) for the applicant G Kannan and Sanjna Rai (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v PP [2006] SGHC 57 (folld) Gurcharan Singh v State (1978) 1 SCC 118; 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 (refd) K S Menon, Re [1946] MLJ 49 (refd) King Emperor v Joglekar AIR 193......
  • Public Prosecutor v Benito Aloria Yap and others
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 9 June 2021
    ...In the context of the deprivation of liberty prior to conviction, the High Court in Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 57 at [5] has pointed out the following: A grant of bail serves two important purposes. First, it helps to preserve the “golden thread” in crimin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT