Bail Return Proceedings and Prosecutor’s Limited Authority
Article 8. In the criminal case between the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the High Public Prosecutor, Mr. John, the defendant, was released provisionally by Mr. Daeng, who posted bail and executed a bail agreement with the court. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Mr. John to imprisonment for 60,000 baht. The case became final two months after that, and Mr. Daeng subsequently requested the return of the bail. However, the trial court reported that it was credible that the cash used as bail belonged to Mr. John. The court ordered Mr. Daeng to bring Mr. John, the defendant, in for questioning, but he failed to do so because he had returned to Australia. The trial court clearly determined whether the bail belonged to Mr. Daeng or Mr. Daeng. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, ordering the bail to be returned to Mr. Daeng, as follows: The Public Prosecutor will appeal against the Court of Appeal’s order to dismiss Mr. Daeng’s petition, if possible, considering the trial court’s order. Why will the Public Prosecutor not appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment? Because the Public Prosecutor’s authority regarding bail agreements is limited to cases of breach of contract, pursuant to Section 11(8) of the Public Prosecutor’s Act B.E. 2498. When the responsibility regarding the bail of Mr. Daeng terminates, the Public Prosecutor’s authority in the part relating to the bail agreement also terminates. The Public Prosecutor’s duties in that respect become void.