KATCHU MOHIDEEN BAZEER AHAMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 192 consider?

The judgment refers to Banking Act, Criminal Justice Reform Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2025] SGHC 192 High Court (General Division) 26 September 2025 HC/MA 9074/2024/01 36 min read

9 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	26 September 2025
Judge	Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Constitutional Law
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Manicka & Co, Gabriel Gan, Manickavasagam s/o R M Karuppiah Pillai, Tan Wee Hao

Source: [2025] SGHC 192, High Court (General Division), decided 26 September 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals Constitutional Law — Equal protection of the law — Whether s 106A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) infringed Article 12 of the Constitution Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties — Right to life and personal liberty — Whether s 106A of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) infringed Article 9 of the Constitution

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Constitutional Law

Judges (1)

Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Manicka & Co Firm Gabriel Gan Counsel Respondent Manickavasagam s/o R M Karuppiah Pillai Counsel Appellant Tan Wee Hao Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Katchu Mohideen Bazeer Ahamed Appellant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 192 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 26 September 2025 concerning Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing sentencing, equal protection of the law, and fundamental liberties. The judgment was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang. The case was brought by Katchu Mohideen Bazeer Ahamed (appellant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Manicka & Co and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 9 cases and references 4 statutory provisions, including the Banking Act, the Criminal Justice Reform Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code.

[2025] SGHC 192 explained

KATCHU MOHIDEEN BAZEER AHAMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGHC 192) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 September 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Constitutional Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2025] SGHC 192 about?

KATCHU MOHIDEEN BAZEER AHAMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGHC 192) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals”, “Constitutional Law — Equal protection of the law — Whether s 106A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) infringed Article 12 of the Constitution”, and “Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties — Right to life and personal liberty — Whether s 106A of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) infringed Article 9 of the Constitution”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 192 consider?

The judgment refers to Banking Act, Criminal Justice Reform Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s 106A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which criminalises bail indemnity agreements, arguing it violated Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution. The court rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld the six-week imprisonment sentence for operating a syndicated bail indemnity scheme that recruited local bailors for foreign accused persons.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 192?

[2025] SGHC 192 (KATCHU MOHIDEEN BAZEER AHAMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 26 September 2025 addressing Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically sentencing, equal protection of the law, and fundamental liberties. The judgment was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang.

Who were the parties in KATCHU MOHIDEEN BAZEER AHAMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGHC 192)?

The appellant in [2025] SGHC 192 was Katchu Mohideen Bazeer Ahamed, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Manicka & Co and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 26 September 2025 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 192?

[2025] SGHC 192 was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang in the High Court (General Division) on 26 September 2025. The case concerned Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.