Rex v Patel (Cr. App. 4/1935.) [1935] EACJ 1 (1 January 1935)

Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.

REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)

MAGANBHAI VALABHBHAI PATEL, Appellant<br>(Original Accused No. 1).

## Cr. App. $4/1935$ .

Bail pending appeal—Exceptional and unusual reasons—Power to suspend sentence and grant bail-Sections 121 (3) and 342 Criminal Procedure Code.

Appellant was convicted under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code of retaining property knowing or having reason to believe it to have been feloniously obtained. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court from the conviction and sentence and applied for his release on bail pending hearing of his appeal.

Held (19-2-35).-Following Rex v. A. B. (1 Tanganyika L. R. 8) "that the proper principle to be applied in such a case as the present is that the Court should not grant bail pending the hearing of the appeal unless there are exceptional and unusual reasons appearing in the case." The application for bail was refused.

Kasliwal for applicant.

Bruce, Solicitor-General, for Crown.

SHERIDAN, C. J.—This is an application for bail by a convicted prisoner. In the case of $\text{Rev } v$ . A. B. (1 Tanganyika L. R., 8), it was held by Russell, C. J.: "That the proper principle to be applied in such a case as the present is that the Court should not grant bail pending the hearing of the appeal unless there are exceptional and unusual reasons appearing in the case." The application in that case was made by a convicted prisoner and the learned Chief Justice following the cases of Edgar Gordon (7 Cr. App. R. 182), John William Gott (18 Cr. App. R. 86) and Joseph Greenberg (17 Cr. App. R. 106) refused bail. It does not appear from the affidavit grounding the application nor has it been argued that there exist exceptional or unusual reasons in this case warranting a relaxation of the rule.

The application is refused.