The applicant was arrested and charged with rape under s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and extortion under s 134(1)(a) of the Act. On 27 August 2013, around 1930 hours, the applicant allegedly accosted the complainant and her boyfriend while impersonating a police officer. He arrested them on false charges of loitering for purposes of prostitution, confiscated their cell phones (Nokia Asha 201 and Samsung J700), and led them to a secluded place. He released the boyfriend but kept the complainant handcuffed, demanded $10.00, removed the handcuffs, and then allegedly raped her without consent. The matter was reported to police and the applicant was arrested on 20 August 2013 at his rural home in Rusape after fleeing. Property stolen from the complainants, including a cell phone, pouch, bunch of keys, and handcuff keys were recovered from him. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming he was in love with the complainant and had only assaulted her with open hands during an altercation when he saw her with another man. He claimed he went to Rusape for his brother's memorial service. The arresting officer deposed that the applicant fled and resisted arrest twice - first at the scene of crime where he dropped his cell phone, jacket and hat, and again at his rural home.
The application for bail was dismissed.
Where an applicant faces serious and overwhelming charges and has demonstrated through conduct (fleeing from the scene, resisting arrest on multiple occasions) that he cannot be trusted to attend trial if released on bail, the applicant is disqualified from being granted bail as a matter of settled law.
The court noted that the arresting detail's averments concerning the events surrounding the applicant's dramatic arrest stood "virtually unchallenged," implying that the applicant's version lacked credibility even at the bail stage.
This case illustrates the application of established principles in Zimbabwean criminal procedure regarding bail applications where serious charges are involved and the applicant has demonstrated flight risk through fleeing and resisting arrest. It reinforces the principle that courts will refuse bail where the accused cannot be trusted to attend trial based on the seriousness of charges and conduct demonstrating an unwillingness to face justice.