The Court of Appeal today reserved its judgment on ex-deputy Anwar Ibrahim's bail application in his sodomy case.

Judges Pajan Singh Gill, Hashim Mohd Yusof and Richard Malanjum said they needed time to study the submissions made over the past week by the defence and the prosecution.

They, however, gave their assurance to both parties that they will deliver their decision with written judgments soon.

"Please bear with us. We need time to consider all the arguments. We will give (an early) date and will come out with the (written) grounds of judgment as well," said Pajan.

Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja are seeking bail pending their appeals against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision to convict them for sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, the former driver of Anwar's wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

In 2001, Anwar was jailed nine years, while Sukma was sentenced to six years in prison and four strokes of the rotan.

When the Court of Appeal rejected their appeals last April, it also revoked Sukma's RM50,000 bail - granted by the High Court two years ago - and ordered the Indonesian-born businessman to begin serving his sentence.

Unprecedented objection

Earlier, lead counsel Christopher Fernando claimed that this was the first time in 25 years that the Attorney-General had opposed a bail application.

He urged the court to look at the judicial attitude in the country in relation to the bail issue based on past cases and practice.

"For the past 25 years, your lordships would know, having been in the private practice yourselves, that the court is known to grant bail both during trial and pending appeal. In fact, it is an exception for the court to refuse bail," he said.

Citing several cases - such as those involving Umno politicians Sahar Arpan and Saidin Tamby (who were granted bail despite conviction for corrupt practices charges) - Fernando pointed out that the AG's Chambers rarely object to bail applications.

"It is amazing that in the case of Datuk Seri Anwar, the prosecution has gone to such an extent to object to a bail application. This is a question which the court must address when considering bail. The court must ask itself why the prosecution is opposing the application," he said.

Fernando said the prosecution has asked the court to set double standards in judicial practice.

"Since the prosecution did not object to bail in other cases involving individuals facing similar circumstances as Datuk Seri Anwar, this becomes selective and would render the constitutional right to be treated equally by the law a nullity," he said.

Sick man

Fernando also said there are more than enough special circumstances for the court to grant Anwar application for bail and stay of execution.

"The man (Anwar) is enduring excruciating pain which has bound him to a wheelchair. The man is very sick. This is a special circumstance. His back pain has worsened because of the police assault during his detention. This is also a special factor," he said.

"Based on that, the AG could have at least showed some compassion and be magnanimous enough to support our bail."

Anwar's other counsel Karpal Singh said he found it startling for AG Abdul Gani Patail to argue that, if the court were to grant Anwar bail, it would reflect the appellate court's lack of confidence in its decision to dismiss the sodomy appeal.

"It is startling for the AG to say this. If that is the case, what relevance is section 57 (which deals with the Appeals Court's jurisdiction on bail and stay of execution) in the Court of Judicature Act?" he asked.

"We submit that each case must be decided upon its own circumstances and in this case, the circumstances are crying out to the court to allow the bail application."

As to the Anwar's legal access, Karpal said that that Anwar was visited a total of 332 times by his lawyers because he was involved in many cases.

"These visits were not in respect of this case alone but a host of other cases. The applicant had a total of 12 cases, both criminal and civil, which necessitated the lawyers visiting him in jail to get instructions," he said.

'Strong case'

He reiterated his contention that it was unfair of the prosecution to claim that there is a possibility of Anwar committing an offence if he were freed from jail.

"They say this is not certain, that anything can happen, and only God knows the future. Since it is up to God, then we leave it to Him. Why say anything? Why put it in print?" he said.

Sukma's lawyer Gobind Singh Deo urged the court to grant his client bail and stay of execution stating that there is prospect for their (Sukma and Anwar) appeals to be allowed at the Federal Court.

"Our appeals are rested on three Federal Court decisions which completely exonerated the applicants. That shows that we have a very strong case. It would be unfair for the court to jail him now and later say 'sorry' because he has served time for something he did not do," he said.

He added that no amount of money could compensate Sukma's loss of liberty when he could have been given bail.

Gobind also urged the court to note that Abdul Gani had hardly mentioned Sukma when presenting his arguments yesterday.

"We had expected that. It shows that there is absolutely nothing for them to deny him (Sukma) bail," he said.