037-NLR-NLR-V-49-RATNAYAKE-et-al.-Petitioners-and-SUB-INSPECTOR-POLICEDUNAGAHARespondent.pdf
WINDHAM J.—Ratnayake v. Sub-Inspector, Police, Dunagaha. 118
1947
Present :Windham 3,
RATNAYAKE et ai., Petitioners, and SUB-INSPECTOR, POLICE,DUNAGAHA, Respondent.
S. C. 319—Application for Bail in M. G. Negombo, 51,825.
H. A. Kottegode, for the petitioners.
H. A. Wijemanne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
August 1, 1947. Wikdham J.—
In this case the learned Magistrate, in refusing bail after he hadpreviously granted it, relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal case Bex v.Phillips, reported in the Weekly Notes of May 17, 1947. But I thinkhe erred in applying the ruling in that case to the facts of the presentone. The real ground for refusing bail in that case was that the accusedhad a number of previous convictions for similar offences, and had beencaught red-handed in the commission of one of the offences with whichhe was charged, which offence he admitted. It was not merely that therewas (as there is in the present case) a strong prima fade case againstthe accused. The present accused has a clean record.
In these circumstances I grant this application, and the case is remittedto the Magistrate to release the accused on bail as he thinks fit in theproper circumstances.
Bail—Prima facie case against accused—-Does it justify refusal ?
Bail should not be refused merely on the ground that there is a strong primafacie case against the accused.
Application for bail.
Bail allowed.