Roshan a/l Karthi

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts approach bail in the security-offences jurisdiction, where the ordinary Criminal Procedure Code discretion is displaced by the restrictive scheme of section 13(2) of Act 747.

Roshan a/l Karthi appears in this corpus as counsel for the prosecution in bail applications heard together in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). The applicants sought bail pending trial, and the matters turned on the special statutory bail regime that applies to security offences. The court set out the framework in Malay: an "permohonan jaminan Mahkamah sementara menunggu perbicaraan kes" (an application for bail pending the trial of the case), engaging "Seksyen 388 dan Seksyen 389 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah" (sections 388 and 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act 574) and, critically, "Seksyen 13(2) Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012" (section 13(2) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, Act 747), read with "Seksyen 130V Kanun Keseksaan" (section 130V of the Penal Code).

The security-offences legislation restricts the availability of bail. Section 13(2) admits of five exceptions — "lima pengecualian untuk jaminan" — and the argument centred on whether an applicant fell within one of them, in particular whether an applicant was "seorang yang sakit atau uzur" (a person who is sick or infirm) whose illness or infirmity might justify the grant of bail notwithstanding the general prohibition. That inquiry requires the court to assess the medical evidence and to decide whether the applicant's condition is of a character that brings the case within the narrow statutory exception.

As counsel for the prosecution, Roshan a/l Karthi's role was to resist the applications and to hold the applicants to the strict limits of the exceptions under section 13(2) of Act 747. The matters are a clear illustration of how the courts approach bail in the security-offences jurisdiction, where the ordinary discretion under the Criminal Procedure Code is displaced by a restrictive statutory scheme that permits release only in tightly defined circumstances. Because the exceptions are narrow and exhaustive, the court's task in each application was to examine whether the applicant's circumstances genuinely fell within the statutory language, rather than to exercise the broad evaluative discretion that governs bail in ordinary criminal cases.