Marko Chingoma v The State

On 12 February 2011, the complainant gave the applicant her car keys to park the vehicle safely. The applicant drove the vehicle away and it was not recovered. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police at Harare Central (CR 917/02/11). After committing the alleged offence, the applicant went to South Africa and traveled in and out of Zimbabwe until his arrest in November 2011. The police were unable to locate him between February 2011 and November 2011. The applicant faces a charge of car theft. There were witnesses who saw the applicant being handed the car keys by the complainant and subsequently driving away. The police discovered an alleged car theft syndicate involving the applicant which was under investigation. A person known only as Tendai, believed to be involved, had not been located.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the applicant demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that his release on bail would not prejudice the interests of justice
• Whether there was a likelihood that the applicant would abscond if released on bail
• Whether there was a risk that the applicant would interfere with witnesses or investigations if released on bail

Bail refused. The applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate for bail at that stage.

In bail applications, while there is a presumption of innocence, the onus is on the applicant to show on a balance of probabilities that his release on bail will not prejudice the interests of justice. Where an applicant faces a serious charge with a strong case against him, has demonstrated conduct consistent with evading justice (such as leaving the jurisdiction after the offence and evading arrest), possesses the means to abscond (passport and international connections), and there is a real risk of interference with ongoing investigations that are still at their infancy, the applicant has failed to discharge the onus and bail should be refused. The fact that an offence is serious, coupled with real fears that the applicant may abscond or interfere with investigations or evidence, suffices as valid and good reason for refusing bail.

The court observed that it is required to balance the interests of justice against those of the applicant and should lean in favour of an accused unless the interests of justice will be prejudiced by the accused's release. The court noted that the applicant's actions after the matter was reported (going to South Africa and being in and out of the country until arrest) were consistent with a person bent on evading justice, and that the police were strongly of the view that he was evading arrest as they were unable to locate him since February 2011.

This case illustrates the application of bail principles in Zimbabwe in cases involving serious charges of car theft. It demonstrates how courts balance the presumption of innocence against the interests of justice, particularly where there is evidence of flight risk and potential interference with ongoing investigations. The case reinforces the principle that an applicant's conduct after the alleged offence (such as leaving the jurisdiction and evading arrest) is highly relevant to bail determination. It also confirms that the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of conviction, potential sentence, and risk of interference with investigations are all factors that can justify refusal of bail.