LAWS 4431

SECTION 2
CRIMINAL TRIAL ADVOCACY
BAIL APPLICATION ASSIGNMENT
LECTURER: DATO’ ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN KAMARUDIN

NAME MATRIC NO.

MUHAMMAD AKIFF IEZAT BIN MOHD SHUKRY 1729125

 IN THE SESSION COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MOHD SAMAD BIN AHMAD

BAIL APPLICATION
Yang Arif, I am Muhammad Akiff Iezat representing the accused Mohd Samad Bin Ahmad. My
client has been charged with Theft under Section 379 of the Penal Code in which the said offence
is a non-bailable offence. My client, Mohd Samad Bin Ahmad had pleaded not guilty for the said
offence and wanted to make an application for bail for following reasons:
1. Pursuant to S.388(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is stated that the court has
discretionary powers to grant bail for a non-bailable offence in which my client was charged
under Section 379 of the Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence.
2. By referring to the case of Dato’ Mat Shah v Pendakwa Raya [1991] 2 MLJ 125, whereby
the court held that High Court has unfettered discretion to grant bail when the offence is
punishable with death or life imprisonment
3. Next, by referring to the case of PP v Mat Zain [1948] 1 MLJ 148, whereby the court held
that the granting of bail is based on the discretion of the court and the court also must consider
the gravity of the offence.
4. Furthermore, referring to the case of PP v Wee Swee Siang [1948] MLJ 114, the court has
laid down factors to be considered before granting a bail such as the character of the accused,
danger of the offence being repeated, the danger of the accused absconding and the nature and
gravity of the offence charged.
5. As for my client, he is 53 years old and has no previous criminal records and never had any
trouble with the law enforcement before this, in which, this is his first offence. Furthermore, He
is also a father to six childrens whom his childrens mentioned that my client is a loving father
and also a good husband to his wife. In addition, he also held a good reputation amongst his
friends and also to the community of Kampung New Zealand.
6. Moreover, before the said offence was committed, my client was in a desperate situation since
he was fired from his previous employment that made him unable to get any income.
Furthermore, he is the sole provider for his family in which he needs to feed his wife and also his
6 childrens. Therefore, by refusing bail, my client’s family would suffer detrimentally due to the
absence of my client as their income provider.
7. In addition, referring to the case of Leow Nyok Chin v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ
437, whereby the court has held that in granting a bail for a non-bailable offence, the character of
the accused should be considered. Furthermore, my client is of good character and would never
abscond if he were to be released on bail since he needs to work to feed his family.
8. Moreover, he is less likely to repeat the same offence since he committed the said offence due
to his situation at that time in which he was left jobless and unable to provide for his family at
the time of the offence.
9. We humbly pray to the honourable Court to allow my client to be released on bail and to set
the bail at a reasonable sum. Furthermore, my client will comply with any conditions imposed by
the court in order to be released on bail.
10. For the interest of preserving the principle of justice, we humbly urge the Court to grant this
bail application.