In
this matter, the applicants are applying for bail pending trial.
The
circumstances in this matter are that the applicants are alleged to have
committed armed robbery against the complainant and took away R3,000=.
They
have argued that they are innocent individuals who, while walking along a path
were provoked by the complainant's manner of driving which bordered on
rudeness. A confrontation took place which resulted in some amicable
resolution.
This
occurred on the 21st March 2009.
They
were arrested, detained, and have remained in custody ever since.
It
is their argument that will not abscond as they have no travel documents, and,
in any event, the charges they are facing are trumped up, and, for that reason,
the State cannot secure a conviction against them.
The
respondent has, however, argued that it has a strong case in view of the
evidence against them. It is for that reason that they are likely to abscond
and also endanger the safety of the public.
The
applicants are facing serious charges.
It
is trite that the fact that one is facing a serious charge per se is not
enough reason to deny him/her bail. In addition to the seriousness of the
charge, there should be an additional factor in order for the court not to
grant bail to a suspect.
Their
argument is that they cannot abscond as they have no travel documents.
With
great respect, this argument no longer holds in Zimbabwe, as it is well-known
that many people cross our borders on a daily basis without the said documents.
The court, therefore, takes judicial notice of this fact.
It
is my view, therefore, that the seriousness of the offence, which on its own,
if proved by the respondent, will result in their incarceration for a long
period, is enough inducement for them to abscond.
It
was further their submission that they will report once per week at Beitbridge
Police Station. While that may be so, in my view, it is not enough preventive
measure for them not to abscond.
In
this regard, one must weigh the possibility of granting them bail with
stringent conditions on one hand, against the consequences that may result in
the event of them breaching their bail conditions. In my opinion, to grant them
bail which might result in the breach of bail conditions is not a good idea in
the circumstances.
In
my opinion, the applicants do not qualify for bail by this court.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
