Court Upholds 'Thana Tom's' Bail, Adds Conditions Barring Interference with Evidence and Witnesses

The Criminal Court has ruled to uphold the bail of prominent lawyer Sittra Biabangkerd, widely known as 'Thana Tom', but has imposed additional conditions. The court has prohibited him from interfering with evidence and witnesses, and from making public statements that could undermine the credibility of the legal proceedings. On June 30, at the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, the court was scheduled to deliver its order regarding the prosecution's request to revoke Thana Tom's bail and Thana Tom's objection to this request. The court asked Thana Tom if he had anything further to present. He stated that if the court deemed any of his actions inappropriate, it should set conditions, and he promised to refrain from any risky behavior. Regarding his alleged threats to the co-plaintiff's witnesses, he agreed not to discuss them further. He also mentioned his comment to a judge on the day his verdict was read, suggesting that his case be used to teach newly graduated judges, to which the court responded that it would consider it. After reviewing the petitions and statements from both parties, the court found no reason to change its previous order granting bail and its conditions for the first defendant during the appeal. However, it deemed it appropriate to add further conditions to enhance the suitability of the bail during the appeal period. The new conditions stipulate that the first defendant (Thana Tom) must not interfere with witnesses or evidence, nor disseminate criticisms of the evidence to the public in a manner that diminishes its credibility, or engage in any act that could affect the court's proceedings, as the case is not yet final. Regarding the co-plaintiff's request for the court to inquire into the defendant's alleged contempt of court or violation of court order, the court stated that contempt of court under Section 198 of the Criminal Code is a criminal offense that requires the normal procedures of complaint, investigation, prosecution, and trial as stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not something the court can simply investigate itself. The court explained that punishing for violation of court order is its exclusive power. It emphasized the necessity for courts to have measures or tools to maintain order within the court premises and to ensure that proceedings are conducted peacefully, justly, and swiftly, allowing the court to perform its duties without interference or intimidation from external influences, thereby enabling it to administer justice effectively and efficiently as intended by law. Furthermore, the court noted the increasing trend of acts that disrupt, obstruct, threaten, or disregard court orders or directives, often with aggressive and violent tendencies. However, it stressed that courts must exercise their power to punish for contempt of court cautiously and without abuse of authority. Given the defendant's statement in the court record today that he would not engage in any act that could be deemed a violation of court order, and considering the additional bail conditions imposed, the court decided to grant the defendant an opportunity without further investigation into the matter. The defendant was strictly cautioned to adhere to the imposed conditions, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to the revocation of his bail. Source: INN News