Article 88 — Detention or release after indictment
Texte légal (original thaï)
คดีที่ราษฎรเป็นโจทก์
เมื่อศาลประทับฟ้องและได้ตัวจำเลยมาศาลแล้ว หรือคดีที่พนักงานอัยการเป็นโจทก์
เมื่อได้ยื่นฟ้องต่อศาลแล้ว ศาลจะสั่งขังจำเลยไว้หรือปล่อยชั่วคราวก็ได้
traduction anglaise
In a case where a private person is the plaintiff, when the court has accepted the charge for consideration and the defendant has been brought to the court; or in a case where the public prosecutor is the plaintiff, when the charge has been filed with the court, the court may order the defendant detained or released provisionally.
Cette traduction anglaise est fournie à titre indicatif uniquement et n'a pas encore été vérifiée de manière définitive ; référez-vous toujours à l'original thaï.
Annotation de l'entreprise
Section 88 marks the transition from pre-charge remand under section 87 to detention during trial, within Chapter 1. It empowers the court, once the case is properly before it, to detain the defendant during proceedings or to grant provisional release. The trigger differs by prosecutor: for a private prosecution, acceptance of the charge plus the defendant's presence; for a public prosecution, the filing of the charge. Read with sections 71 (issuing a detention warrant during trial) and 90 (challenging unlawful custody), it is the statutory basis on which detention during trial is lawful.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
This is the stage where whether you remain in custody through the trial is decided, so preparing a strong provisional release (bail) application before or at indictment is critical. Detention validly ordered under Section 88 after indictment is lawful, and the legality of the earlier investigation is a separate matter to be argued at trial. Speak to counsel about your release strategy early; a consultation with a Thai lawyer peut vous aider à vous préparer.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2694/2553 (2010)
Under the former Section 88 then in force, where the defendant was granted provisional release upon the filing of the charge, there was no ground for the Court of First Instance to issue a detention warrant during trial.
The defendant was released provisionally on the same day the charge was filed, so the court held there was no basis to issue a trial-stage detention warrant under the former Section 88.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 350/2553 (2010)
Arrest and custody are steps separate from the investigation; once the prosecutor files and the court accepts the charge and issues a detention warrant during trial under Sections 71 and 88, the custody is lawful, and the legality of the investigation is for the trial court to decide.
The court held the applicant's detention during trial was lawful because it rested on the court's power under Sections 71 and 88 after indictment, so a separate petition challenging it failed.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7116/2544 (2001)
The initial arrest and custody are separate from the investigation, so a flawed investigation does not defeat the prosecutor's power to prosecute; detention during trial ordered after indictment under Sections 58(4), 71 and 88 is lawful and does not violate Section 90.
After the applicants were indicted and the court accepted the charge and ordered detention during trial under Sections 58(4), 71 and 88, the court held the custody did not violate Section 90 and the prosecutor's authority to prosecute was unaffected.
Décisions sélectionnées avec numéros de dossier vérifiés dans la base de données de la Cour suprême. Les versions anglaises sont des traductions éditoriales réalisées par le cabinet à des fins d'étude.
Foire aux questions
Can the court detain me during my trial in Thailand?
Yes. Under Section 88, once the charge is before the court (accepted with the defendant present in a private prosecution, or filed in a public prosecution), the court may order the defendant detained during proceedings or released provisionally.
Is detention after indictment unlawful if the investigation was flawed?
No. Thai courts have held that detention validly ordered after indictment under Sections 71 and 88 is lawful, and any problem with the earlier investigation is a separate issue to be decided at trial.