Here's an interesting case of an ASP who was arrested for assaulting a couple of police detainees, but was later released on bail of RM3,000.
What's interesting isn't the fact that it was a policeman beating someone up. After we've had the Inspector General of Police giving the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia a black eye, this is small, small potatoes by comparison.
What interests me are the circumstances underlying the granting of bail in favour of ASP S. Suresh:
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=16676Wait a minute... you're saying that witness tampering is not a concern because the witnesses are policemen? What kind of logic is that? And how come the defence lawyer says RM3000, the magistrate sets bail at RM3000? Who's making the decisions here? The magistrate or the defence lawyer?
Defence lawyer M. Puravalen asked for his client to be released on RM3,000 bail.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Abazafree Mohd Abbas objected bail, saying there was fear that the accused, being a police officer, could have access to the witnesses.
Puravalen said there was no concern of witness tampering as a majority of the witnesses were police personnel.
Magistrate Tasnim Abu Bakar set bail at RM3,000 which was later posted by the accused.
Anyway, let's see... A senior officer beats someone up. His underlings see him doing it. So, you arrest him and try to convince his junior officers to blow the whistle and testify against him.
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION: Which is more appealing if you're that junior officer, desperately seeking courage to testify against your boss whom you know from past experience, is perhaps a vicious and vengeful man?
A: Your boss is in the lockup. you don't see his face until the day of the trial.
B: Your boss is free, he visits your home, playfully waves his service revolver in your face, pinches your wife's ass and reminds you that he'll take care of her if anything... "unfortunate" should happen to you.
So what if they're policemen? What are they, bulletproof?