The Criminal Court did not revoke bail for "Lawyer Tum" but imposed an additional condition prohibiting media criticism that could damage the credibility of evidence and affect the judicial process.
At Criminal Court courtroom 710 at 3:00 p.m. on 30 June 2026, the court heard the bail revocation request submitted by Assistant Professor Pantep Puapongpan, Chairman of the Watchdog Foundation, along with Ms. Atchara Saengkhaw, lawyer for Mrs. Jatuporn Ubonlert, known as "Je Aoi." They petitioned the court to revoke the bail of Mr. Sitthira Biebangkert, or "Lawyer Tum," in the 71-million-baht fraud case. This follows a previous court order granting temporary release, after Lawyer Tum gave interviews referencing key witnesses in the case.
After considering the petition and the statements of parties today, the court found no reason to change the existing order permitting temporary release and the conditions for the first defendant’s bail pending appeal. However, the court deemed it appropriate to add further suitable conditions to the bail during the appeal.
Specifically, the first defendant is prohibited from tampering with evidence or publicly criticizing evidence in a way that diminishes its credibility, or from any action that might affect the court’s judicial process, as the case is not yet final.
Regarding the co-plaintiff lawyer’s request for the court to investigate whether the first defendant committed contempt of court or abused judicial power, the court noted that contempt under Criminal Code Section 198 is a criminal offense requiring formal complaint, investigation, prosecution, and trial under normal criminal procedure. It is not for the court to investigate on its own initiative.
The court has exclusive authority to punish contempt and must maintain order and fairness in all judicial proceedings. It is essential to have measures to preserve courtroom decorum and ensure the trial proceeds fairly, orderly, and expeditiously, allowing the court to perform its duties independently and administer justice without external interference.
Currently, offenses involving disturbance, obstruction, intimidation, or defiance of court orders have become more aggressive. Nonetheless, the court must exercise caution and restraint when applying contempt laws, avoiding abuse of power.
Since the first defendant declared today he will avoid actions that risk contempt, and the court has set the additional bail conditions mentioned, the court finds it appropriate to give the first defendant a chance without investigating the facts as requested, and therefore dismisses this part of the petition.
The court warns the first defendant to strictly comply with all bail conditions during temporary release. Failure to do so will lead to immediate consideration of bail revocation.