B. Alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter 110. The Applicants challenge the application of Sub-Sections 148(5)(b) and (c) of the CPA with respect to two aspects of the right to a fair trial, namely, the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be heard. i. Right to be presumed innocent 111. The Applicants aver that Sub-Sections 148(5)(b) and (c) of the CPA are blanket provisions which fail to factor in the character of the accused, their circumstances or even their economic status. Furthermore, that as a matter of law, an accused person should be presumed innocent of the charges preferred against him or her and bail should be granted as of right. 112. The Applicants submit that Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter guarantees the presumption of innocence which is also reflected under Article 13(6)(b) of the Respondent State’s Constitution. 113. The Applicants contend that the freedom of an individual is sacrosanct and should only be curtailed under exceptional circumstances in order to avert the possibility of incarcerating an innocent person. 114. The Respondent State in riposte argues that the limitation imposed by Section 148(5)(b) and (c) of the CPA is underpinned by its Court of Appeal in the case of George Eliawony and 3 Others v. R, that an impugned law must be lawful and not arbitrary, it must provide safeguards against arbitrary application and provide effective controls by those in authority when using the law. Furthermore, that the law must not be more than what is reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. 115. The Respondent State citing the decision in Tanganyika Law Society, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Reverend Christopher R Mtikila v. Tanzania reiterates that under Article 27(2) of the Charter, restriction of rights and 26