Tamil Selven A/L Letchumenan v Pendakwa Raya (A-05-246-04/2018)

(a) A person below the age of eighteen years;

(b) A woman; or

(c) A sick or an infirm person. [6] The reason why we granted bail to the applicant was due to his health condition. The learned DPP, while opposing the application, did not dispute that bail could be granted but cited no authority in support. Nor did learned counsel for the applicant cite any, other than to rely on section 13(2)(c) of SOSMA. [7] Be that as it may, what is important to note is that the learned DPP did not dispute that the applicant (at the time of the application) was suffering from chronic diabetes and in fact had one finger of his foot amputated on 12.8.2017-18.8.2017. This is supported by Exhibit TM-1 which is a letter dated 15.3.2018 issued by Dr. Nawaz Hussain B. Mohamed Amir of the KPJ Specialist Hospital, Ipoh. [8] There was also no dispute that the applicant was suffering from acute coronary syndrome as shown in Exhibit TM-1 item 4. In addition to that, he had also been diagnosed as being HIV positive. [9] In paragraph 23 of his affidavit in support, the applicant promised to comply with all conditions that this court might want to impose for the grant of bail. He also promised to attend court without fail whenever his presence is required. 4 [10] There is a condition in section 13(2) of SOSMA that the grant of bail is subject to an application by the Public Prosecutor that the person be attached with an electronic device in accordance with the CPC. [11] Does this mean that bail can only be granted if there is such application by the Public Prosecutor? We do not think so, and in this regard we agree with the decision of Collin Lawrence Sequerah J in Jimmy Seah Thian Heng & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2018] MLJU 1187 that notwithstanding the absence of such application by the Public Prosecutor, the courts are still vested with the discretion to grant or not to grant bail to any of the classes of persons enumerated in section 13(2) of SOSMA. [12] The co-relation between section 388 of the CPC and section 13 of SOSMA was considered recently by this court in Raman a/l Shunmugham v PP [2019] 1 LNS 896 where Kamardin Hashim JCA delivering the judgment of the court said: “[22] Melalui pembacaan kami, peruntukan di bawah seksyen 13 SOSMA cukup jelas melalui seksyen-kecil (2) bahawa peruntukan itu bukanlah satu halangan secara total terhadap jaminan. Sebaliknya, kami berpandangan peruntukan seksyen 13 SOSMA tidak ubahnya sama seperti peruntukan di bawah seksyen 388 KAJ. Apa yang membezakan hanyalah kekecualian terhadap pemakaian peruntukan itu diberikan kepada tiga kategori orang yang di bawah proviso bagi seksyen 388(1) KAJ. Manakala bagi SOSMA, kekecualian itu terdapat di bawah seksyen-kecil (2), seksyen 13 SOSMA. Oleh itu, pandangan kami jaminan masih boleh diberikan kepada tertuduh yang dipertuduhkan dengan kesalahan keselamatan sekiranya syarat-syarat yang diperuntukan di bawah seksyen-kecil (2) dipenuhi. Oleh itu juga seksyen 13 SOSMA bukanlah peruntukan yang sememangnya tidak boleh diberi jamin (unbailable). Dengan kata lain, kesalahan-kesalahan keselamatan (security offences) adalah kesalahan yang terjumlah kepada kesalahan ‘non bailable’ di mana Mahkamah masih mempunyai budi bicara untuk 5 membenarkan tertuduh dilepaskan atas jaminan sekiranya syarat-syarat di bawah seksyen-kecil (2) dipenuhi.” [13] It was for these reasons that we allowed the applicant to be released on bail pending disposal of his criminal trial in the Sessions Court, subject to the conditions we mentioned earlier. ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Dated: 9 October 2019. For the Applicant: RSN Rayer of Messrs R. Nethaji Rayer & Co. For the Respondent: Khairul Annuar bin Abd. Halim, Deputy Public Prosecutor, of the Attorney General’s Chambers.