Boateng and Another v. The Republic [1976] 2 GLR 444-450

Material Facts:

The applicants were arraigned before the Circuit Court on charges of stealing, among others. They applied for and were granted bail. However, their bail was rescinded when the first accused person jumped bail.

The applicants, by a motion on notice, applied to the High Court to grant them bail.

Issue:

Whether or not the High Court, in the present case, has jurisdiction to grant bail to the applicants.

Holding:

The High Court, in the present case, has no jurisdiction to grant bail to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi:

In Section 96(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) , as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1975 (N.R.C.D.309), it is provided that:

Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section or in section 15 [of Act 30], but subject to the following provisions of this section [which deal with conditions for consideration on application for bail and which are not here in issue], the High Court or a Circuit Court may in any case direct that any person be admitted to bail or that the bail required by a District Court or police officer be reduced.

The court, in commenting on this provision, advanced that:

There is a false illusion about what looks like concurrent jurisdiction. In my view the true construction is that a concurrent jurisdiction is only given to the High Court and the circuit courts in matters of bail, as regards the refusal or the amount for bail, dealt with by a district court or a police officer . It is no more than a supervisory jurisdiction by which either of these two courts may direct a district court or a police officer to admit an accused person to bail or direct a reasonable amount for the bail. It would seem then that a High Court or a circuit court does not proceed under section 96 (2) of Act 30 to admit an accused standing trial before either court to bail. To interpret section 96 (2) of Act 30 otherwise will produce the queer result that an accused standing trial before the High Court could properly apply to and legitimately be admitted to bail by a circuit court.

Given that the section only gives a supervisory jurisdiction to the High Court and the Circuit Court to direct a District Court or the Police to admit a person to bail, the only enactment that empowers applications for bail at trial at first instance before any court, be it the High Court, Circuit, or District Court, is Section 96(1).

In the present case, the applicants, coming by way of a motion on notice to renew their application for bail and not by way of an appeal, cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction in Section 96(2).

Principle in Case:

Section 96(2) of Act 30 gives supervisory jurisdiction to the High Court and the Circuit Court to direct a District Court or the police to admit a person to bail.