Rex v Patel (Cr. App. 4-1935.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court refused bail to a convicted prisoner pending appeal. Following Rex v A.B., the Court held that bail should not be granted pending appeal unless there are exceptional and unusual reasons appearing in the case. No such exceptional or unusual reasons were shown in the application.
Outcome
Appellant to remain in custody pending hearing of appeal
Facts
The 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. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court from the conviction and sentence and applied for his release on bail pending the hearing of his appeal.
Issues
- Whether bail should be granted to a convicted prisoner pending the hearing of an appeal.
Orders
- Application for bail refused.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.121(3)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.342
- Penal Code s.295(1)
Cases cited (4)
- Rex v A.B. (1 Tanganyika L.R. 8)
- Edgar Gordon (7 Cr. App. R. 182)
- John William Gott (18 Cr. App. R. 86)
- Joseph Rosenberg (17 Cr. App. R. 106)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.