The applicant was arrested together with 5 co-accused and jointly charged with 6 counts of armed robbery. Among the firearms recovered by police was one the applicant claimed to be his. The firearm was unlicensed and was found in the vehicle of a co-accused (accused 2) who had allegedly given him a lift, where the applicant claimed he forgot it. The applicant claimed he had lawfully purchased the firearm even though it was not yet licensed in his name, but failed to disclose the licensed holder or produce a copy of the firearm license. The Investigating Officer alleged that the applicant and his co-accused were of no fixed abode and sometimes lived in neighbouring countries like South Africa. The applicant applied for bail pending trial, arguing he had no previous convictions, had a permanent place of residence, had no propensity to commit crime, denied involvement in the offences, operated a successful company pioneering new technology and inventions, and had substantial assets including immovable properties in Zimbabwe (though no deed of transfer was produced as proof).
The application for bail was dismissed.
In bail applications involving serious charges such as armed robbery with strong evidence suggesting guilt and the likelihood of a lengthy custodial sentence upon conviction, the presumption of innocence cannot outweigh the risk that the applicant may abscond and not stand trial. An applicant bears the burden of rebutting allegations made by the State in opposition to bail, particularly allegations concerning flight risk such as lack of fixed abode and residence in foreign countries. The possession of an unlicensed firearm found in circumstances connecting the applicant to co-accused in armed robbery charges is a material factor weighing against the grant of bail, as it suggests criminal activity and undermines claims of innocence. Where an applicant fails to produce readily available documentary evidence (such as a passport, property deeds, or firearm licenses) to support claims made in a bail application, adverse inferences may be drawn against the applicant.
The court observed that if a firearm was not licensed in the applicant's name, the applicant would not innocently move about with it, as possession in those circumstances would not only constitute a criminal offence but would likely disqualify the applicant on conviction from acquiring a license by reason of having a relevant previous conviction, apart from the firearm being forfeited. The court also noted that the risk of a lengthy custodial sentence would be an incentive for an applicant to abscond. The court remarked that a passport would have proved whether the applicant had never travelled beyond the borders or whether he had done so lawfully and not through porous borders, had it been produced.
This case illustrates the Zimbabwean court's approach to bail applications in serious armed robbery cases, particularly where the accused faces multiple counts and there is evidence linking them to unlicensed firearms. It demonstrates how courts balance the presumption of innocence against the risk of absconding, particularly where the evidence appears strong and the potential sentence is lengthy. The case also highlights the importance of applicants addressing and rebutting allegations made by the State in opposition to bail, and the consequences of failing to produce documentary evidence (such as passports, property deeds, or firearm licenses) to support bail application claims.