PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hanif Khatri (Tetuan Hanif Khatri)

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hanif Khatri (Tetuan Hanif Khatri)

Court held that offences attracting the increased penalties under Section 39A(2) DDA (including possession of 196.36g cannabis) fall within the unbailable category under Section 41B(1)(b) by purposive construction; consequently Section 388 CPC does not entitle the accused to bail in such DDA cases and the Sessions Court’s refusal was correct.

Citation
WA-44-149-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Arwin Syazuansyah bin Perpinder; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Case Number
WA-44-149-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / High Court Decision on Revision of Sessions Court Bail Refusal
Outcome
Application for revision dismissed; Sessions Court order refusing bail upheld
Legal Topics
Bail, Unbailable Offences, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Section 388 Criminal Procedure Code, Section 41 B DDA Interpretation, Revisionary Powers
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Narcotics Law Procedure — Revision Bail Unbailable Offences Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arwin Syazuansyah bin Perpinder

Applicant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / High Court Decision on Revision of Sessions Court Bail Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an accused charged under Section 39A(2) DDA is entitled to bail
  2. 2 Whether Section 41B(1)(b) or 41B(1)(c) of the DDA applies to offences punishable under Section 39A(2)
  3. 3 Whether Section 388 CPC can override the specific bail bar in Section 41B DDA

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that offences attracting the increased penalties under Section 39A(2) DDA (including possession of 196.36g cannabis) fall within the unbailable category under Section 41B(1)(b) by purposive construction; consequently Section 388 CPC does not entitle the accused to bail in such DDA cases and the Sessions Court’s refusal was correct.

Court Disposition

Application for revision dismissed; Sessions Court order refusing bail upheld

Orders

  • Revision dismissed
  • Sessions Court decision refusing bail under Section 41B DDA affirmed