To deny jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim bail would be an infringement of his constitutional right to be treated equally before the law, the Court of Appeal heard today.

Lawyer Karpal Singh ( photo ) said similar to Anwar's co-accused Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, the jailed politician should be given bail pending the disposal of his appeal against his sodomy conviction.

"The Federal Constitution states that all citizens must be equal before the law. In this case o­ne accused is allowed bail but yet the other is not.

"Doesn't that just infringe the first appellant's (Anwar's) constitutional right?" he said.

Anwar is applying for bail pending the outcome of his appeal against his sodomy conviction. If he succeeds, he would be released o­n April 14 after serving two-thirds of his earlier six-year jail sentence for corrupt practice.

The application was heard before justices Pajan Singh Gill, Mohd Hashim Yusof and Richard Malanjum who reserved their judgment after both defence and prosecution completed their arguments this afternoon.

The Court of Appeal is also hearing Anwar's appeal against a High Court decision o­n Aug 8, 2000 to sentence him to nine years' jail for sodomising The appeal continues tomorrow.

Medical condition

In his submissions, Karpal also said bail was always allowed pending appeal except for exceptional circumstances and claimed that there was none to stop the court from granting Anwar bail.

He said the prosecution's earlier contention that Anwar would be tampering with police investigations and witnesses was no longer applicable as both his client's corruption and sodomy cases were at the appeals stage.

He said the court should dispense justice and that Anwar should not be allowed to suffer any longer as he had already spent four years in prison.

"The appeal (against the sodomy conviction) is not a frivolous appeal. It has merits which involved constitutional issues.

"If this court reserved its judgment for another six months and subsequently allow his appeal, then he was made to suffer in the meanwhile for nothing," argued Karpal.

The lawyer also said that Anwar's medical condition was another reason why the court should grant bail, adding that his client was in need of surgery to treat his pro-lapsed disc condition.

No right

In objecting to the application, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail ( photo ) argued that Anwar had no right to apply for bail before the Court of Appeal as it was not part of the proceeding of his sodomy trial.

"The first appellant did not apply for bail at the High Court which heard his sodomy case and therefore cannot now come to this court and ask for bail and stay of execution," said the AG, adding that Anwar should have applied at the court below.

He also said that the court has no jurisdiction to grant Anwar bail and that the court could o­nly do so after making a conclusive finding in the appeal.

Abdul Gani also claimed that Anwar's medical reason was not good enough to warrant a bail since Dr S Jeyaindran from Hospital Kuala Lumpur said in his affidavit that the ex-deputy premier's condition has improved significantly.

Futile effort

Meanwhile, Karpal countered that Anwar did not make the application for bail at the court below because it would have been a futile effort since he was already serving his first sentence.

"Our position is unique. He (Anwar) was not allowed bail for the first and had to serve his first sentence. Then the second sentence was ordered to run after the completion of the first sentence. If we applied bail he would still be jailed.

"We cannot now go back to the court below as it has no longer has a jurisdiction since the matter is already at the appeal stage," he said.

Karpal further submitted that the court had jurisdiction under section 60 of the Court of Judicature Act to grant bail.