Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani & Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 04 December 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 288
• Docket Number: Show Cause Nos 1 and 2 of 2002
• Date: 04 December 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Chew Siong Tai (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 288
• Defendant Counsel: Chandra Mohan K Nair (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Bail pending appeal,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Bail,Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 361(4),Failure of accused to attend hearing of appeal,Show cause hearing on why entire bail should not be forfeited

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Ramesh Shivandas Kripalani was convicted of four charges of employing immigration offenders under s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act on 6 May 2002 and sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment by district judge Mavis Chionh. He filed a Notice of Appeal and applied for leave to travel out of jurisdiction for business purposes. The district judge granted his application and set the amount of bail at $32,000. Due to health reasons, the appellant was unable to travel and on 8 August 2002, he applied for an extension of leave to travel out of jurisdiction. The district judge granted the appellant leave to travel to the United States of America, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Russia between 8 and 31 August 2002. The appellant subsequently left for Bangkok, Thailand and had not returned since. He did not attend the hearing of his appeal on 15 October 2002.

2 The bail set at $32,000 was furnished by two bailors. The bailor, in respect of Show Cause No 1, is the appellant’s brother-in-law, Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani ("Ram Mahtani"), who put up a cash bail of $20,000. The remaining $12,000 was provided by the appellant’s wife, Kripalani Sangeeta Ramesh ("Kripalani"), the bailor in Show Cause No 2. As the two show cause proceedings related to the same appellant, I directed them to be heard together.

3 Sometime in August 2002, the appellant informed Ram Mahtani, that he was going to Bangkok to collect some monies from his clients there and that he would return by 31 August 2002. While the appellant was abroad, Kripalani spoke to him on the phone on 26 August 2002 and asked him "how things are going on". The appellant told her that things were going on well and that he would return to Singapore as planned on 30 August 2002, as he had to submit his passport to the Investigating Officer on 31 August 2002. Thereafter, his mobile phone was switched off and there were no other communications with him. Ram Mahtani made a police report at the Neighbourhood Police Post in Marine Parade on 22 September 2002. In the police report, he stated that he contacted the appellant’s family in Singapore but was informed that the appellant had not contacted them either.

4 It has often been emphasized by the courts that the obligation which comes with standing bail for an accused is not merely a moral one, but has serious legal consequences attached with it. The bailor undertakes real risks, when an accused fails to surrender to his bail. In R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton [1980] Crim LR 715, Donaldson LJ averred this statement of principle :

It has been said by this court, and by other courts time and again, that entering into suretyship (going bail for someone, to use the common phrase) is an extremely serious matter not to be lightly undertaken, and those who go bail must understand that, if the accused fails to surrender to his bail, it is only in the most exceptional cases that the court will be prepared to modify the prima facie position, which is that the amount for which the person concerned has stood surety will be forfeit in full.. (emphasis added)

5 The above passage was referred to by Karthigesu J (as he then was) in Loh Kim Chiang v Public Prosecutor [1992] 2 SLR 233, where he discussed extensively the principles relating to forfeiture of bail. In that case, he had also referred to a passage from the judgment of Lord Denning MR in R v...