Can the accused successfully challenge a bribery conviction on the ground that the court appointed commissioner was not a public servant?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a civil dispute over the ownership of a parcel of agricultural land leads the trial court to order the seizure of the landowner’s title documents, and the court appoints a temporary commissioner to carry out the seizure, after which the accused offers a monetary inducement to the commissioner in order to tamper with the seized documents.

The dispute originates when the complainant files a civil suit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement. Fearing that the title deeds might be altered or destroyed, the trial court, invoking its inherent powers, directs a senior advocate‑officer of the court to act as commissioner for the purpose of taking physical custody of the documents and producing them before the court. The commissioner, although not a regular officer of the government, is given authority by the court’s order to secure the documents.

During the course of the seizure, the accused, who is also a party to the civil suit, approaches the commissioner and offers a sum of money with the intention of influencing the commissioner to conceal certain entries in the title deeds that would be detrimental to the accused’s claim. The commissioner refuses the offer and reports the incident to the investigating agency. An FIR is lodged under the provisions dealing with the offering of a bribe to a public servant.

The investigating agency proceeds to charge the accused under the offence of offering a bribe to a public servant, relying on the definition of “public servant” that includes persons who, although not holding a formal public office, are in “actual possession of the situation of a public servant.” The trial court, acting as a special judge, convicts the accused, imposing imprisonment and a fine.

On appeal, the accused contends that the commissioner was not a public servant within the meaning of the statute because the appointment itself was ultra vires the procedural law governing civil courts. The defence argues that the civil court lacked statutory authority to create a post of commissioner for the purpose of seizing private documents, and therefore the commissioner could not be deemed a public servant for the purposes of the bribery provision.

While the accused’s factual defence—that he did not actually bribe a public servant—addresses the substantive element of the offence, it does not resolve the procedural question of whether the commissioner's appointment was valid. The conviction rests on the premise that the commissioner fell within the ambit of “public servant,” a premise that hinges on the court’s power to appoint such a commissioner. Consequently, a mere denial of the bribery act is insufficient; the legal issue must be examined at the level of statutory interpretation and jurisdiction.

Because the conviction was rendered by a special judge exercising criminal jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy is a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal challenges both the legal characterization of the commissioner and the validity of the trial court’s order appointing the commissioner, seeking to set aside the conviction on the ground that the essential element of the offence—offering a bribe to a public servant—was never satisfied.

A seasoned lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court prepares the appeal, meticulously citing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that delineate the limited purposes for which a civil court may issue commissions, and contrasting them with the inherent powers preserved under the procedural code. The brief also references judicial pronouncements that clarify the scope of “public servant” under the relevant penal provision, emphasizing that the definition requires the existence of a statutory or common‑law office, which was absent in the present appointment.

The appeal argues that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by creating a post that the statute does not recognise, rendering the commissioner’s role a nullity. Accordingly, the accused cannot be held liable for offering a bribe to a non‑existent public servant. The petition further requests that the conviction be quashed, the fine refunded, and the record of imprisonment expunged.

In addition to the substantive legal arguments, the appeal highlights procedural irregularities: the commissioner's appointment was made without any reference to the specific provisions of the civil procedure that authorize such commissions, and the order was not subject to any prior hearing. These deficiencies, the appeal asserts, vitiate the entire process of document seizure and the subsequent criminal proceedings.

The filing of the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential because the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain criminal appeals arising from convictions by subordinate courts, and it can interpret both the criminal and civil procedural statutes in an integrated manner. The High Court’s power to entertain revisions and appeals under the Criminal Procedure Code ensures that the accused receives a comprehensive review of the legal and procedural errors alleged.

Legal practitioners familiar with the High Court’s jurisprudence on the definition of “public servant” have observed that the courts are reluctant to extend the term to individuals appointed in a purely administrative capacity without statutory backing. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court once noted that “the mere fact of being tasked by a court does not automatically confer public‑servant status unless the appointment is grounded in law.” This observation reinforces the accused’s position that the commissioner’s appointment was legally infirm.

Consequently, the remedy sought is the quashing of the conviction through a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, coupled with an order directing the release of any security posted and the restoration of the accused’s liberty. The appeal also seeks a declaration that the civil court’s order appointing the commissioner was void, thereby preventing any future misuse of such powers.

In preparing the appeal, the counsel engaged lawyers in Chandigarh High Court to examine parallel decisions on the limits of civil court powers and the interpretation of “public servant” in bribery cases. Their collaborative research underpins the argument that the conviction rests on a misapprehension of statutory authority, and that the High Court is the appropriate forum to rectify this error.

The procedural route—filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court—emerges as the only viable avenue to address both the substantive and procedural infirmities of the conviction. By challenging the jurisdictional overreach of the trial court and the consequent mischaracterization of the commissioner, the appeal aims to secure a comprehensive relief that a simple factual defence could not achieve.

Question: Does the civil court possess the statutory power to appoint a commissioner for the purpose of seizing title documents in a civil suit, or was the appointment ultra vires the procedural law governing civil courts?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the trial court, invoking its inherent powers, directed a senior advocate‑officer to act as a commissioner and take physical custody of the title deeds. The legal issue hinges on whether such an appointment falls within the limited categories enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure for issuing commissions, or whether the court merely relied on a residual inherent power that does not create substantive authority. The Code of Civil Procedure expressly lists the purposes for which a civil court may appoint a commissioner, typically limited to taking accounts, examining witnesses, or preserving evidence directly related to the suit. Seizing private title documents to prevent tampering, while arguably protective, does not squarely fit any of those enumerated purposes. Moreover, the court’s inherent power under the procedural code is confined to procedural matters and cannot be stretched to create a new substantive post absent legislative sanction. Consequently, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the appointment was ultra vires, rendering the commissioner's role legally null. The procedural consequence of this conclusion is that any action taken by the commissioner, including the alleged receipt of a bribe, must be examined in light of the void appointment. Practically, this undermines the prosecution’s reliance on the commissioner's status and opens the door for the accused to seek quashing of the conviction on jurisdictional grounds. For the complainant, it means that the seizure of the documents may be deemed unlawful, potentially affecting the civil suit’s evidentiary foundation and prompting a separate challenge to the court’s order in the civil forum.

Question: Can the appointed commissioner be classified as a “public servant” for the purposes of the offence of offering a bribe, given that the appointment may be void?

Answer: The crux of the offence rests on the existence of a public servant who receives a bribe; without such a person, the essential element collapses. The definition of a public servant in the relevant penal provision extends to individuals who, though not holding a formal office, are in actual possession of the situation of a public servant. However, this extension presupposes the existence of a valid statutory or common‑law office. In the present case, the commissioner was appointed by a civil court to a role not recognized by any statute. If the appointment is deemed ultra vires, the commissioner never legally occupied a public‑servant situation. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that the mere performance of duties assigned by a court does not automatically confer public‑servant status absent statutory backing. The practical implication is that the prosecution’s case collapses because the bribery provision requires a public servant as the recipient of the inducement. The accused’s factual defence—that he did not bribe a public servant—therefore becomes legally sufficient. For the investigating agency, this interpretation mandates a reassessment of the charge sheet and may compel them to withdraw the accusation or amend it to reflect a different offence, if any. The complainant, meanwhile, loses the leverage of a criminal conviction to pressure the commissioner, and must rely on civil remedies to protect the documents.

Question: What procedural remedy is available to the accused to challenge the conviction, and what are the steps required before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The appropriate procedural avenue is a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from convictions rendered by special judges exercising criminal jurisdiction. The appeal must be filed within the prescribed period, accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities outlining the jurisdictional defect in the appointment of the commissioner and the consequent failure to satisfy the definition of a public servant. The appellant must also seek a stay of the execution of the sentence, including imprisonment and fine, pending determination of the appeal. In the appeal, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The High Court will examine the statutory framework governing civil commissions and the interpretation of “public servant” in the bribery provision. If the High Court is persuaded, it may quash the conviction, set aside the fine, and order the release of any security posted. The practical effect for the accused is the restoration of liberty and removal of the criminal stigma. For the prosecution, a quashal would necessitate a reassessment of the case, possibly leading to a fresh investigation on alternative grounds. The complainant may need to pursue separate civil relief to address the underlying dispute over the land title.

Question: Assuming the commissioner's appointment is invalid, does the accused still face liability for the alleged offer of a bribe under any other legal theory?

Answer: If the commissioner's role is legally void, the specific offence of offering a bribe to a public servant cannot attach because the statutory element of a public servant is missing. However, the accused’s conduct—offering money to influence the handling of private documents—could potentially attract liability under other provisions, such as criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, or offences relating to the tampering of evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would assess whether the act constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is punishable even when the intended victim is not a public servant. The practical implication is that while the original conviction may be set aside, the investigating agency could file a fresh charge sheet under a different offence that captures the essence of the corrupt inducement. The accused would then need to defend against a new set of allegations, possibly requiring a separate trial. For the complainant, this shift means that the criminal process may continue, albeit under a different legal theory, preserving the deterrent effect against corrupt practices. Nonetheless, the primary relief sought—quashing the conviction for offering a bribe to a public servant—remains viable and central to the appeal.

Question: How would the quashing of the conviction affect the civil suit concerning the ownership of the agricultural land and the seizure of the title documents?

Answer: The civil dispute revolves around specific performance of a sale agreement, and the seizure of the title deeds was intended to preserve evidence. If the conviction is quashed on the ground that the commissioner’s appointment was void, the seizure itself may be deemed unlawful. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the civil court must revisit its order, as the underlying authority for the seizure no longer exists. The practical consequence is that the title documents should be returned to the party from whom they were taken, restoring the status quo ante. This restoration could alter the evidentiary landscape of the civil suit, potentially strengthening the complainant’s claim if the documents contain entries favorable to his case. Conversely, the accused may seek to challenge any adverse inferences drawn from the unlawful seizure. The investigating agency’s findings and the criminal proceedings may also be expunged from the civil record, preventing the use of the conviction as a collateral attack on the civil claim. Ultimately, the quashing of the conviction not only clears the accused’s criminal record but also compels the civil court to rectify procedural irregularities, ensuring that the land ownership dispute proceeds on a lawful evidentiary basis.

Question: What makes the Punjab and Haryana High Court the proper forum for reviewing the conviction and how does its jurisdiction encompass the appeal arising from the trial court’s decision?

Answer: The conviction was handed down by a special judge exercising criminal jurisdiction in a subordinate court. Under the constitutional scheme, any criminal judgment rendered by a lower court is appealable to the High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the district where the trial took place. The Punjab and Haryana High Court exercises such jurisdiction for the district in which the civil suit and the subsequent seizure were ordered. This High Court also possesses the authority to entertain criminal appeals, revisions and writ petitions arising from convictions, thereby providing a comprehensive forum to examine both the criminal and the underlying civil procedural questions. The appeal must therefore be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court because it is the only court empowered to scrutinise the legality of the trial court’s order appointing the commissioner, to interpret whether the commissioner fell within the definition of a public servant, and to assess whether the conviction rests on a valid statutory foundation. Moreover, the High Court can entertain a revision under the criminal procedural law, allowing the accused to challenge procedural irregularities that occurred before the trial court, such as the absence of a hearing before the commissioner’s appointment. The High Court’s power to interpret the civil procedural code in conjunction with the criminal statutes ensures that the appeal can address the intertwined issues of jurisdictional overreach and the statutory definition of public servant. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court becomes essential because only counsel admitted to practise before that court can file the appeal, argue the jurisdictional points, and make submissions on the appropriate writ or revision. The High Court’s precedent‑setting role also means that a successful challenge will have a binding effect on lower courts within its jurisdiction, thereby providing the accused with a definitive resolution to the legal controversy.

Question: How does the procedural sequence from the filing of the FIR to the filing of the appeal operate and why is it necessary for the accused to retain a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to navigate this route?

Answer: The procedural chain begins with the filing of an FIR by the investigating agency after the commissioner reported the attempted inducement. The FIR triggers the registration of a criminal case, leading to the issuance of a summons and the framing of charges against the accused. The trial court, acting as a special judge, conducts the trial, evaluates the evidence, and ultimately delivers a conviction. Following the conviction, the accused is entitled to file an appeal within the statutory period prescribed by the criminal procedural law. This appeal must be presented before the High Court that has jurisdiction over the trial court’s territorial area, which in this scenario is the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal must set out the grounds of challenge, including the argument that the commissioner was not a public servant because the appointment was ultra vires the civil procedural statutes. The High Court will then admit the appeal, issue notices to the prosecution, and schedule a hearing where both parties can present their arguments. Throughout this process, the accused must rely on a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court because only an advocate enrolled with that court can file pleadings, draft the memorandum of appeal, and represent the accused before the bench. The lawyer’s expertise is crucial for framing the legal questions, citing relevant precedents on the definition of public servant, and highlighting procedural defects such as the lack of a statutory basis for the commissioner’s appointment. Additionally, the lawyer will ensure compliance with filing requirements, service of notice, and adherence to timelines, thereby preventing dismissal on technical grounds. The procedural route is not merely a mechanical sequence; it demands strategic advocacy to persuade the High Court that the conviction rests on a flawed legal premise, a task that can only be performed by counsel authorised to practice before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Question: Why does a purely factual defence that the accused did not actually bribe a public servant fail to address the core legal issue in the appeal?

Answer: The factual defence focuses on the element of the offence that requires the accused to have offered a bribe. While denying the act is a necessary component of any defence, the conviction in this case hinges on a prerequisite legal question: whether the person to whom the alleged bribe was offered qualified as a public servant under the applicable penal provision. The trial court’s finding that the commissioner was a public servant formed the basis for sustaining the charge of offering a bribe. Consequently, even if the accused could prove that no money changed hands, the conviction would still stand if the court were convinced that the statutory definition of public servant was satisfied. The appeal therefore must shift the focus from the factual allegation to the legal determination of the commissioner’s status. This requires challenging the validity of the civil court’s order appointing the commissioner, arguing that the appointment exceeded the powers granted by the civil procedural code, and demonstrating that the commissioner did not hold a statutory or common‑law office. By establishing that the commissioner was not a public servant, the essential element of the offence disappears, rendering the charge untenable. Moreover, the appeal must address procedural irregularities such as the absence of a hearing before the appointment, which further undermine the legitimacy of the commissioner's role. The legal issue is thus structural: it questions the very foundation upon which the criminal liability was built. A factual denial alone cannot overturn a conviction that rests on a mischaracterisation of the victim’s legal status. The appellate court will therefore require a thorough legal argument, supported by precedent on the definition of public servant and the limits of civil court powers, to achieve relief.

Question: In what circumstances might the accused look for lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and what strategic advantages does such counsel provide when preparing the appeal?

Answer: The accused may seek lawyers in Chandigarh High Court for several pragmatic reasons. First, the Chandigarh High Court is geographically proximate to the district where the civil suit originated, making it convenient for the accused to consult counsel who is familiar with the local court culture, registry procedures and the investigative agency’s practices. Second, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often have experience handling matters that intersect civil and criminal jurisdictions, especially cases involving the appointment of commissioners by civil courts. Their familiarity with the procedural nuances of both the civil code and the criminal procedural law can be instrumental in crafting arguments that bridge the two domains. Third, engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court allows the accused to obtain a second opinion on the viability of the appeal before committing to filing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, thereby ensuring that the chosen strategy aligns with the specific facts of the case. These counsel can also assist in gathering documentary evidence of the commissioner’s appointment, preparing affidavits, and coordinating with the lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court who will ultimately file the appeal. The strategic advantage lies in leveraging local expertise to strengthen the factual record, while the lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court focus on the appellate advocacy before the higher bench. This collaborative approach ensures that the appeal is supported by a robust evidentiary foundation and a coherent legal narrative, increasing the likelihood of the High Court accepting the argument that the commissioner's appointment was ultra vires and that the definition of public servant does not apply. By consulting lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, the accused can benefit from a comprehensive preparation that addresses both procedural and substantive dimensions of the case, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of the appeal.

Question: How does the risk that the trial court’s finding of the commissioner as a public servant, despite the procedural irregularities in his appointment, affect the likelihood that the conviction will survive a High Court appeal?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused offered money to a court‑appointed commissioner with the intention of influencing the handling of seized title documents. The conviction hinges on the legal classification of the commissioner as a public servant, a determination that rests on the validity of the civil court’s order creating the post. The primary risk for the defence is that the appellate bench may adopt a purposive approach, focusing on the functional reality that the commissioner performed a public function under the direction of a court, thereby satisfying the statutory definition of a public servant even if the appointment was procedurally flawed. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must therefore anticipate that the court will scrutinise not only the statutory authority for the appointment but also the practical effect of the commissioner’s duties. If the bench concludes that the functional test outweighs the procedural defect, the conviction could be upheld, leaving the accused to serve the sentence and pay the fine. Conversely, if the court places greater weight on the ultra vires nature of the appointment, it may find that the essential element of the offence—offering a bribe to a public servant—was never satisfied, leading to quashing of the conviction. The practical implication for the accused is that the defence must prepare a robust argument that the civil court exceeded its jurisdiction, citing the limited purposes for which commissions may be issued under the civil procedure code and relevant case law. The defence should also be ready to demonstrate that the commissioner lacked any statutory or common‑law office, thereby negating the public‑servant element. This strategic focus will shape the appellate brief, influencing whether the High Court will overturn the conviction or uphold it despite the procedural irregularities.

Question: Which specific documents and pieces of evidence should the defence collect and preserve to effectively challenge both the validity of the commissioner’s appointment and the allegation of a bribe?

Answer: The defence must assemble a comprehensive evidentiary record that includes the original court order authorising the seizure of the title deeds, any accompanying minutes or notes that reveal the scope of the commissioner’s powers, and the statutory provisions cited by the trial court to justify the appointment. The FIR, the charge sheet, and the statements of the commissioner, especially his report of the alleged bribe, are critical to assess the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the defence should obtain the communication trail—letters, emails, or messages—between the accused and the commissioner that may demonstrate the nature of the interaction, or lack thereof, and possibly reveal that no money changed hands. Bank statements or transaction records of the accused around the time of the alleged offer can either corroborate or refute the bribery allegation. Witness testimonies from court staff or other officials who observed the commissioner’s conduct can help establish whether the commissioner acted in a public capacity or merely as an auxiliary officer. Forensic analysis of any seized documents, such as the title deeds, may also be relevant to show that the alleged tampering never occurred, thereby undermining the motive for the bribe. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court have emphasized the importance of securing the original order of appointment, as any deviation from the procedural requirements—such as lack of prior notice or hearing—can be highlighted as a fatal defect. The defence should also request the production of the commissioner's service record to demonstrate that he does not hold a permanent public office. By compiling this dossier, the defence creates a factual foundation to argue that the prosecution’s case is built on an impermissible appointment and unsubstantiated allegations, thereby increasing the prospects of a successful quash of the conviction.

Question: In what ways can the defence argue that the civil court exceeded its jurisdiction by creating a commissioner for document seizure, and which precedents are most persuasive for this line of attack?

Answer: The defence can contend that the civil court’s inherent powers are limited to procedural matters and cannot be stretched to create a substantive post absent statutory authority. The argument should begin by highlighting that the civil procedure code enumerates specific purposes for which a commission may be issued, none of which include the seizure of private title documents in a civil suit. By showing that the court’s order falls outside these enumerated purposes, the defence demonstrates a jurisdictional overreach. The defence can further rely on the principle that an appointment that is ultra vires is a nullity, and therefore the person appointed cannot be said to occupy a public‑servant position. The landmark decision in Padam Sen and Another versus the State, where the apex court held that a civil court could not create a commissioner for seizure of account books and that such a commissioner was not a public servant, provides a direct precedent. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can cite this judgment to illustrate that the higher judiciary has consistently rejected expansions of civil court powers beyond the statute. Moreover, the defence may reference subsequent decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court that reaffirm the limited scope of commissions, emphasizing that the courts have been reluctant to extend the definition of public servant to individuals appointed in a purely administrative capacity without legislative backing. By weaving these authorities into the appellate brief, the defence underscores that the trial court’s order was void ab initio, thereby invalidating the prosecution’s reliance on the commissioner’s alleged public‑servant status. The practical implication is that if the appellate bench accepts this reasoning, it will likely quash the conviction on the ground that the essential element of the offence was never fulfilled, and may also order the restoration of any seized documents and the refund of the fine.

Question: What procedural routes are available in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to obtain relief, and what are the critical timing and filing requirements that the defence must observe?

Answer: The primary procedural avenue is a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence, which must be filed within the period prescribed by the criminal procedure code, typically thirty days from the date of the judgment. The appeal should raise both substantive and procedural grounds, including the invalidity of the commissioner’s appointment and the consequent failure to satisfy the public‑servant element of the offence. In addition to the appeal, the defence may consider filing a revision petition if there are apparent errors of law or jurisdiction that were not addressed in the appeal, though this is generally a subsidiary remedy. A writ of certiorari under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can also be contemplated if the conviction is alleged to be perverse or if there is a denial of natural justice, such as the absence of a hearing before the commissioner’s appointment. The defence must ensure that the memorandum of appeal is meticulously drafted, citing the relevant precedents and statutory provisions, and that all supporting documents—court orders, FIR, charge sheet, and evidence—are annexed. The filing must be accompanied by the requisite court fee and a certified copy of the conviction order. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court advise that any delay beyond the statutory period may bar the appeal, unless a valid extension is obtained on grounds of unavoidable circumstances, which must be substantiated with affidavits and supporting material. The defence should also be prepared to file an interim application for bail pending the outcome of the appeal, as the High Court has the authority to grant bail even after conviction. Observing these procedural requirements is essential to preserve the right to challenge the conviction and to secure any interim relief that may mitigate the impact of the custodial sentence.

Question: If the accused remains in custody, what bail strategies can be employed during the pendency of the appeal, and how does the nature of the alleged bribery offence influence the court’s assessment of bail?

Answer: The defence should promptly move for bail on the grounds that the conviction is under serious challenge due to a fundamental defect in the prosecution’s case. An application for bail pending appeal can emphasize that the essential element of the offence—the existence of a public servant—has not been established, rendering the conviction vulnerable to reversal. The accused’s personal circumstances, such as family ties, employment, and lack of prior criminal record, should be highlighted to demonstrate a low flight risk. The nature of the alleged bribery offence, while serious, is not a non‑bailable offence per se; however, courts often consider the potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The defence can argue that the accused has no incentive to obstruct the investigation because the alleged act was a single, isolated offer that was rejected and reported. Moreover, the defence can offer surety, impose restrictions on movement, and submit a written undertaking to appear before the court whenever required. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court may advise seeking a conditional bail order that limits the accused’s ability to interfere with the civil proceedings concerning the land dispute, thereby addressing the prosecution’s concerns about witness intimidation. The defence should also request that the bail be granted on the basis of the pending appeal, noting that the appellate court has the power to stay the execution of the sentence. By presenting a balanced bail petition that acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations while underscoring the procedural infirmities and the accused’s personal circumstances, the defence enhances the likelihood of securing release pending the final determination of the appeal.