Bangkok Legal Service

Article 9. Mr. Som filed a criminal lawsuit against Mr. Saket. The court ruled against the plaintiff’s claim, stating that the case had merit and issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Saket, who was aware of the matter. Mr. Saket subsequently appeared before the court, and the court granted him bail. Mr. Som then became aware that Mr. Saket had been seen by Mr. Sae and challenged him to arrest him. Mr. Som became angered and produced a copy of the arrest warrant requesting the police to apprehend Mr. Saket. The police complied and took Mr. Saket into custody and transferred him to the court. The court released Mr. Saket. Therefore, Mr. Som, Mr. Saket, and the police who apprehended him, are liable for what offenses?

Answer: Mr. Som already knew that Mr. Saket had appeared before the court and was granted bail. He still used the copy of the arrest warrant. The police were required to apprehend Mr. Saket according to the warrant. It was not a matter within the police’s discretion to decide whether to apprehend Mr. Saket according to circumstances. Mr. Som was therefore liable for infringing upon freedom as stipulated in Section (Judgement of the Court of Appeal No. 2160/2521). Mr. Saket merely mocked and challenged to arrest him, which was not an offense. The police apprehended Mr. Saket based on a misinterpretation that the court had issued an arrest warrant. The police were not liable under Section . The District Prosecutor of Chachoengsapee was retired on day.