High Court sets aside Kamal Hashim’s bail order

The Sessions Court did not consider the possibility that the accused might abscond, says judge.

JOHOR BAHRU: The High Court here has set aside the Sessions Court decision allowing lawyer Kamal Hisham Ja’afar bail for criminal breach of trust charges and charges under the Companies Act 1965.

Judge Mohd Sofian Abd Razak made the decision after reviewing the bail granted to Kamal Hisham, 45, and ordered the lawyer to be detained at the Ayer Molek detention centre here until completion of the trial.

In his judgment, Mohd Sofian said the Sessions Court had erred in granting bail to the accused.

“After hearing submissions of both parties (the prosecution and defence), the court found that the Sessions Court judge did not consider the possibility that the accused (Kamal Hisham) might abscond,” he said.

Mohd Sofian, however, allowed Kamal Hisham to visit his ailing father, if necessary, accompanied by the police.

The High Court on September 17 called on the prosecution and defence to review the Sessions Court decision which allowed bail for Kamal Hisham.

Kamal Hisham was arrested on September 2 and charged in the Sessions Court here on September 3, 8 and 14, with four counts of criminal breach of trust and six charges under the Companies Act 1965.

He was allowed bail totalling RM700,000 when he pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Earlier in today’s proceedings, Johor prosecution unit head Saiful Edris Zainuddin, who was assisted by Companies Commission of Malaysia deputy public prosecutor Ku Hayati Ku Haron said the commission had submitted an affidavit on the accused who had a tendency to abscond as he had fled the country previously.

However, lawyers C. Vignesh Kumar, Hanif Hassan and Mohd Asram Zakaria representing the accused asserted it was impossible for their client to leave the country as he had surrendered his passport to the court and was giving full cooperation since detention.

Kumar, when met by reporters after the proceedings, said the defence team would file an application to the Court of Appeal to review the decision.

– BERNAMA