Muhammad Feroz Khan v Public Prosecutor: Bail Application for Accused with Epilepsy

Muhammad Feroz Khan bin Abdul Kader applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for bail, citing concerns about the Singapore Prisons Service's ability to manage his epilepsy. Feroz faces 61 charges under the Road Traffic Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, the Computer Misuse Act, the Remote Gambling Act, and the Penal Code, including charges of sexual penetration of a minor. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, dismissed the application, finding that the Singapore Prisons Service could adequately manage Feroz's medical condition and that Feroz posed a high flight risk.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Bail application by Muhammad Feroz Khan, who faces multiple charges, was denied due to flight risk, despite concerns about managing his epilepsy.

1.7 Decision Date

13 November 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Application Dismissed	Won	Teo Siu Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Grace Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Muhammad Feroz Khan bin Abdul Kader	Applicant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	Patrick Fernandez of Fernandez LLC Mohamed Arshad Bin Mohamed Tahir of Fernandez LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Teo Siu Ming	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chong Yong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Grace Lim	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Patrick Fernandez	Fernandez LLC
Mohamed Arshad Bin Mohamed Tahir	Fernandez LLC

4. Facts

Feroz faces 61 charges, including offences under the Road Traffic Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Computer Misuse Act, Remote Gambling Act, and Penal Code.
Feroz faces three charges of sexual penetration of a 14-year-old victim.
Feroz had been granted bail on three previous occasions but was either arrested on fresh charges or failed to attend scheduled mentions.
Feroz absconded for more than six months after the most recent grant of bail.
Feroz suffers from recurrent epileptic seizures.
Feroz suffered two seizures while in remand, both of which ended without medical intervention.
DNA profiling showed Feroz was the biological father of the victim's child in the sexual penetration case.

5. Formal Citations

Muhammad Feroz Khan bin Abdul Kader v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 32 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 287

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-03-06	Feroz was arrested for involvement with a syndicate dealing in de-registered cars.
2019-03-08	Feroz was released on agency bail.
2019-08-20	Feroz was arrested after a road traffic accident.
2019-10-18	Feroz was arrested for driving without a valid license and consent.
2020-11-26	Feroz was charged with 31 offences.
2021-04-29	Feroz did not attend court; bail revoked, arrest warrant issued.
2021-11-06	Feroz was arrested.
2021-11-17	Feroz suffered a seizure while in remand.
2022-01-01	Feroz experienced seizure-related symptoms.
2022-04-29	Feroz's lawyers applied to the State Courts for bail.
2022-05-06	SPS replied to Feroz's lawyers regarding his seizures.
2022-05-09	Feroz suffered a seizure while in remand and was admitted to Changi General Hospital.
2022-05-19	Feroz made further submissions before the State Courts.
2022-05-20	Feroz’s application for bail was dismissed in the State Courts.
2022-06-13	Feroz filed CM 32 in the High Court.
2022-08-18	High Court heard the matter; further affidavits directed.
2022-09-22	High Court dismissed CM 32.
2022-11-14	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Granting of Bail
- Outcome: The court dismissed the bail application, finding that the accused was a flight risk and that his medical condition could be adequately managed by the Singapore Prisons Service.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Flight risk
  - Medical condition management
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] SLR(R) 525
  - [2015] 2 SLR 78
  - [2021] 4 SLR 841
  - [2021] 2 SLR 683
  - [1949] 1 KB 129
  - [1995] 1 SLR(R) 730
  - [1971–1973] SLR(R) 365
  - [1954] MLJ 146
  - [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196
  - [2021] 4 SLR 719
  - [2012] 3 SLR 749
  - [2014] 2 SLR 393
  - [2015] 2 SLR 672
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106

8. Remedies Sought

Bail

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mohamed Razip and others v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1987] SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited for the principle that bail orders are interlocutory and tentative in nature.
Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 78	Singapore	Cited for the principle that bail decisions are interlocutory and not appealable.
Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2021] 4 SLR 841	Singapore	Cited to explain that criminal motions are akin to interlocutory applications.
Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and another	Unknown	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 683	Singapore	Cited to explain that criminal motions typically do not finally determine the parties’ rights.
Lawson and Harrison v Odhams Press Ld	Unknown	Yes	[1949] 1 KB 129	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that cross-examination in interlocutory applications should be avoided to prevent delay and expense.
Tan Sock Hian v Eng Liat Kiang	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 730	Singapore	Cited for the principle that cross-examination in interlocutory matters should only be allowed in exceptional cases.
Ralph v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1971–1973] SLR(R) 365	Singapore	Cited regarding the standard for the High Court to intervene when State Courts have refused bail.
Re Kwan Wah Yip and another	Unknown	Yes	[1954] MLJ 146	Malaysia	Cited regarding the standard for the High Court to intervene when State Courts have refused bail.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 196	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the High Court will act if the State Courts’ decision would give rise to a “serious injustice”.
Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor and another matter	Unknown	Yes	[2021] 4 SLR 719	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the High Court will act if the State Courts’ decision would give rise to a “serious injustice”.
Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 749	Singapore	Discusses the High Court’s power under s 97 of the CPC as a “statutory power of review”.
Public Prosecutor v Li Weiming and others	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 393	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the High Court’s powers of revision are “designed to enable the correction of miscarriage of justice arising from a misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment”.
Ewe Pang Kooi v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 672	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the “fundamental basis” for bail orders is the presumption of innocence.
Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 383	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the High Court, as the “guardian of criminal justice”, should step in and exercise its powers of revision where it seems that there has been a miscarriage of justice by the State Courts in refusing to grant bail to an accused person.
Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 753	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the assessing court will generally endeavour to strike a balance between two broad considerations: the accused person’s interest in preserving his or her liberty prior to conviction, and the State’s interest in securing his or her attendance during proceedings.
Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 106	Singapore	Cited to explain the characteristics of the supervisory jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 (S 727/2018)
r 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 (S 727/2018)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Remote Gambling Act 2014 (Act 34 of 2014)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 97(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 95(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 376A(2) of the Penal Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bail
Flight risk
Epileptic seizures
Singapore Prisons Service
Criminal Procedure Code
Status epilepticus
Remand
Sexual penetration of a minor
Road Traffic Act
Motor Vehicles Act
Computer Misuse Act
Remote Gambling Act
Penal Code

15.2 Keywords

Bail
Epilepsy
Flight Risk
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bail	95
Criminal Procedure	90
Sentencing	85
Criminal Law	75
Road Traffic Act	70
Epileptic Seizures	60
Automobile Accidents	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Bail Applications