Pius Mapunda vs The Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Cause No. 63 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 22 (17 December 1990)

IN THEANIA AT, DAR E£ .S.ALJ\f!'1: MISCELLi,NEOUS CRIMINhL C/1USt NOo 63 OF 1990 In -,:he matter of an applicat:l,.0n for saL-. appii·cation. ann In the matter of Criminal case N•.:,, 1768/90 I the District c0urt ·f Ilala nistrict at Kisutu. · P IVS MAP UNDi ... 00000000000000000000• APPLICANT versus TH::: REPUBLIC 000000000000000..,ooooo RESPO:t-TDENT R U t I N G .. LUGAKINGIRA, J:- ·., This was an appl.ication for bail :fter the same was refused by the Distri-ct court uf Ilala at Kisutu bef'Jre which the applicant is charger-1 with stealing property which is sai~ to be worth T .• shs. 17 1 970,400/eo~ Purporting to act under s.,140 <s)(g) of the Criminal Procedure Act 7 the lower court orere the·applicant to deposit half of the .above .amounto 3efore me Mr. Maira for the applicant expresse~ his fear on the constitutional:i.ty of Sol4!J (S)(g) as it takes away the pre.sumption :>f innocence, among other aspects, while Miss Munisi for the Republic submitted that there was n:?thin(J this court could do so long as the provision remainer part of the s·:.;,tute. I do h0t have to go into these argurr,·1tsJ interesting as they are. I base my decision o::i one matter ,, 1ly: The kaw says that for a pers0n t0 be grante:d bail where the pr;)erty i.nvolveti is valued over 10 m/= he must deposit half .)f '=: "lt am·mnt. rn this case there is nothing to show that the propet ty is worth over ten rriillion sh:.'llingso The only statement on tr•t: matter is the charg·e sheet. 3ut a charge sheet is a collection d allegations that are yet to be proved and cannot be the basi of ~ecining on the liberty of the individualo slnce the applicent filen an affidavit I should have expected a counter affidavit from the Republic, or othe.r evi'dence, from which I coul,j safely feel that the property must be valued over lOm/= 41 There is no such material ann I am

2 not preparer] to be guided by a mere charge sheet, nor should any court be guided therepy. ID my view, theref>re,·the·case is not governed by s.14:] ( Sf( g) 'since the value is doubtful. There being no other grounrls advanced for refusing bail, I direct that the applicant be admitten to bail in the sum of Shs.500 1 000.00 with two sureties in the like sum. -Lr~~+ (KoSoKe kGAKINGJRA) JUDGE 17/12/90