Notice to Surety Against Sheila Devi d/o Badai Guala

• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 15 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 405
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 405
• Hearing Date: 14 September 2012
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 31 October 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Paul (S K Kumar & Associates)
• Docket Number: NS 300 of 2012

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: Background

On 17 August 2010, Sheila Devi d/o Badai Guala (“the surety”) executed a bond in the sum of $15,000 for the release of her husband, Sardar Jagjit Singh (“the accused”), who was charged with two drug-related offences including a long-term (LT-1) offence of consumption of a specified drug punishable under s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The accused was represented by counsel, Mr S K Kumar, whose firm also represented the surety in this matter.

The accused’s matter was one of the many cases in the Subordinate Courts that was held back pending Mr Kumar’s reference to the High Court of the constitutional question on the validity of LT charges in Special Case No. 1 of 2012 (Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP). As a result, the accused’s case was adjourned a number of times pending the determination of the constitutional question by the High Court.

On 8 May 2012, the Honourable the Chief Justice ruled that LT charges were constitutionally valid (see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP [2012] SGHC 163 and a related case, Amazi bin Hawasi v PP [2012] SGHC 164). However, Mr Kumar applied by way of motion for leave to refer the constitutional point further up to the Court of Appeal.

Accused absent

The accused’s case was mentioned on 15 May 2012 before me. However, the accused was not present. Mr Kumar explained that the accused was working and sought an adjournment, pending his application to the Court of Appeal. He undertook to inform the accused of the next mention date. At the next mention date on 29 June 2012, the accused was again absent. Mr Kumar apologised that his firm had not informed the accused of the mention date and sought a further adjournment.

The accused’s case was finally mentioned on 16 July 2012. This time, neither Mr Kumar nor the accused was present. The learned DPP sought and I issued a warrant of arrest against the accused. A notice was also issued to the surety for her to attend court to show cause why payment of the bond sum should not be enforced against her.

In the interim, the accused was arrested on 4 August 2012 on fresh allegations of harassing debtors which were offences under the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188). Additional charges were tendered against him under s 28(1)(b) of the said Act. The fresh offences were allegedly committed on 2 Aug 2012. At the time of writing these grounds, his matter had not been concluded.

Show cause and mitigation

Mr Kumar’s associate, Mr Paul, represented the surety at the ‘show cause’ proceedings before me on 14 September 2012. Mr Paul explained on behalf of the surety (and conveniently also for Mr Kumar) that the staff of his firm had not informed the accused about the mention date. He acknowledged that the accused had been re-arrested for unlicensed moneylending offences. He claimed that the accused had surrendered himself to the authorities. Mr Paul concluded by saying that he was “leaving it to the court.”

I ruled that cause had not been shown.

Mr Paul then proceeded to mitigate on behalf of the surety. He said that the surety and the accused have been married for many years and that she had stood by the accused all this time. They have two children. She had bailed out the accused because of her spousal duty. She was sorry. They came from a poor family and pleaded for leniency.

After hearing...