Summary
A fishing-boat operator sought regular bail in a prosecution concerning attempted maritime heroin smuggling and alleged terrorist financing. He disputed the inference from his boat’s presence and response to a radio call, explaining that his crew had been fishing for a valuable species. The Court found sufficient prima facie material to decline interference with the refusal of bail at that stage, expressly reserving all merits and trial defences.
Issues
- Whether the material and stage of the prosecution justified interference with the refusal of regular bail.
Held
- The available material, including the circumstances of the boat’s presence and the radio response relied upon by the prosecution, justified denying discretionary bail at that stage. The petitioner’s explanation concerning the valuable fish catch and coincidental presence remained available for examination at trial. (¶ 9)
- The Court also considered the seriousness of the alleged offence, the charge sheet already filed, the stated minimum ten-year punishment, absconding alleged participants and continuing investigation in declining present interference. These considerations did not establish guilt. (¶ 10-11)
- Every observation was confined to the regular-bail request and was not to be treated as a determination of the merits, particularly as trial had yet to commence. (¶ 11)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed. Refusal of regular bail remained undisturbed; the petitioner’s explanations and merits were expressly left for trial.