Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Witness tampering

  • 2 Aug 2024

    IMTIAZ KHAN

    Citation
    WA-62-123-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
    Court
    Sessions Court
    Case number
    WA-62-123-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

    Bail was refused because the accused was charged with a non-bailable offence under s.373 Penal Code and failed to demonstrate exceptional grounds under s.388(1) CPC; the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of potential punishment, the accused's foreign status with an expiring work visa creating a tangible flight risk, the public interest and likelihood of witness tampering together justified a judicial refusal of bail.

  • 14 May 2024

    BEE HOOI SIANG

    Citation
    PB-83-382-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
    Court
    Magistrates' Court
    Case number
    PB-83-382-05/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

    Bail was refused because the accused had demonstrably breached earlier bail conditions by threatening a prosecution witness shortly after release, the current charge is of a serious nature (exposing him to up to ten years' imprisonment) and is treated as non‑bailable in entitlement terms; public interest and the need to protect witnesses outweigh unsubstantiated personal health and family care arguments.

  • 8 Mar 2024

    Navukarasan A/l Rethinasingam

    Citation
    BA-44-95-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-44-95-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Because the reduced charge under section 304(a) Penal Code is a non-bailable offence and the prosecution had established a prima facie case at the close of its case, the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional grounds (the asserted delay did not qualify) and release posed a real risk of interference with witnesses; therefore bail is refused under section 388(2) CPC.

  • 8 Mar 2024

    Ragunathan A/l Selvamani

    Citation
    BA-44-96-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-44-96-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Court found the prosecution had adduced a prima facie case under section 304(a) Penal Code, the offence is non-bailable under the First Schedule, and there was a real risk of interference with prosecution witnesses; prolonged detention alone did not amount to exceptional grounds. Therefore the applicant failed to discharge the burden under section 388(2) CPC and bail was refused.