Tichaona Mhandu v The State

The applicant was arrested on 8 May 2015 and faced ten counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and two counts of assault as defined in s 89 of the same Act. All offences were committed between January and May 2015 in Chitungwiza. The applicant allegedly used a consistent modus operandi in all robbery cases, using an unidentified hard object to strike victims and render them helpless before stealing from them. In respect of counts 1, 8 and 10, property belonging to the complainants was recovered from the applicant. In count 1, the applicant had sat and conversed with the complainant at Chicken Inn, Makoni Shopping Centre, accompanied him, and then attacked him at the gate to the complainant's residence. The applicant resided in the same area where the offences were committed. He applied for bail pending trial, stating he was married to three women, had six children, and offered private lessons.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the applicant poses a danger to public safety if released on bail
• Whether there is a likelihood that the applicant will abscond if granted bail
• Whether there is a risk that the applicant will interfere with or intimidate witnesses
• Whether granting bail would undermine the objectives or proper functioning of the justice system

The application for bail was dismissed.

In assessing bail applications, courts must consider the factors set out in s 117(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, namely: (i) whether release will endanger public safety; (ii) whether the accused will stand trial; (iii) whether the accused will interfere with witnesses; and (iv) whether release will undermine the justice system. When assessing risk of absconding, courts must consider the Jongwe factors: nature of charge and severity of punishment, strength of State case, ability to flee jurisdiction, previous behaviour, and credibility of assurances. While seriousness of charges is not per se a ground for denying bail, when combined with multiplicity of offences, failure to rebut a prima facie case, recovery of stolen property from the accused, and residence in the area where offences were committed and witnesses reside, bail should be refused. An accused person must meaningfully rebut the prima facie case against them rather than merely relying on personal circumstances. The fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and presumption of innocence must yield to the proper administration of justice in appropriate circumstances.

The court observed that the attitude of the police or prosecutor, though not necessarily decisive, is a relevant factor to consider in bail applications, citing Mahata v Chigumira NO & Anor 2004 (1) ZLR 88(H) at 92 D-E, but must be considered together with all other relevant circumstances, with each case depending on its own facts. The court noted that there was nothing "peculiar" about an applicant being married to three women with six children and offering private lessons as grounds for granting bail in the context of serious criminal charges.

This case demonstrates the application of statutory bail criteria under s 117(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in Zimbabwe. It illustrates how courts balance the constitutional presumption of innocence and personal liberty against the proper administration of justice when dealing with multiple serious charges. The judgment emphasizes that while seriousness of charges alone is not grounds for denying bail, when combined with other factors such as multiplicity of offences, strength of State's case, failure to rebut allegations, and risks of witness interference and further offending, bail should be refused. The case also reinforces the principle from S v Fourie that fundamental rights must yield to proper administration of justice in appropriate circumstances.