Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani: Bail Forfeiture for Failure to Attend Appeal Hearing
In Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani & Another, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How on December 4, 2002, addressed the issue of bail forfeiture. Ramesh Shivandas Kripalani failed to attend his appeal hearing after being granted leave to travel, leading to a show cause hearing for the bailors, Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and Kripalani Sangeeta Ramesh, to explain why their bail should not be forfeited. The court ordered the entire bail amount to be forfeited, finding that the bailors failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the appellant's return.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Entire bail amount forfeited for both bailors.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Bailors Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and Kripalani Sangeeta Ramesh face bail forfeiture after Ramesh Shivandas Kripalani fails to attend his appeal hearing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Bail forfeited | Won | David Chew Siong Tai of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani | Respondent | Individual | Bail forfeited | Lost | |
| Kripalani Sangeeta Ramesh | Respondent | Individual | Bail forfeited | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Chew Siong Tai | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Chandra Mohan K Nair | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- Ramesh Shivandas Kripalani was convicted of employing immigration offenders.
- Kripalani was granted leave to travel out of jurisdiction for business purposes.
- Kripalani did not return to Singapore and failed to attend his appeal hearing.
- Ram Mahtani and Kripalani Sangeeta Ramesh were the bailors for Kripalani.
- The bailors did not take sufficient steps to ensure Kripalani's return.
- Ram Mahtani made a police report after Kripalani's disappearance.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani & Another, Show Cause No 1 & 2 of 2002, [2002] SGHC 288
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ramesh Shivandas Kripalani convicted of employing immigration offenders and sentenced to imprisonment. | |
| Appellant applied for an extension of leave to travel out of jurisdiction. | |
| District judge granted appellant leave to travel to multiple countries between 8 and 31 August 2002. | |
| Appellant was scheduled to return to Singapore. | |
| Ram Mahtani made a police report. | |
| Appellant did not attend the hearing of his appeal. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Forfeiture of Bail
- Outcome: The court ordered the entire bail amount to be forfeited.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise due diligence by bailors
- Accused's failure to appear in court
8. Remedies Sought
- Prevention of bail forfeiture
- Remission of bail
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Forfeiture Proceedings
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton | Knightsbridge Crown Court | Yes | [1980] Crim LR 715 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that entering into suretyship is a serious matter and the bail amount will be forfeited if the accused fails to surrender. |
| Loh Kim Chiang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to forfeiture of bail. |
| R v Southampton Justices, ex p Green | Southampton Justices | Yes | [1975] 2 All ER 1073 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles guiding justices in determining the extent of fault of the surety. |
| R v Southampton Justices, ex p Corker | Southampton Justices | Yes | 120 SJ 214 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the surety's obligation to pay the recognizance and the factors considered in forfeiture. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bail
- Bailor
- Forfeiture
- Suretyship
- Due diligence
- Recognizance
15.2 Keywords
- Bail
- Forfeiture
- Criminal Procedure
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Surety
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Bail | 90 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Bail
- Criminal Procedure