[2007] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants demonstrated a real and imminent threat of arrest by the police for a bailable offence (forgery) following a tax dispute with the Kenya Revenue Authority. The applicants had shown willingness to cooperate with police investigations and attend summonses. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2123 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ashok Labshanker Doshi; Applicant: Amit Ashok Doshi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 45 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Anticipatory Bail, Bail Pending Arrest, Police Powers, Constitutional Rights, Forgery Offences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ashok Labshanker Doshi
Applicant
Amit Ashok Doshi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Anticipatory Bail
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail pending arrest for alleged offences of forgery.
- 2 Whether the threat of arrest by the police and Kenya Revenue Authority justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
- 3 Whether the offence of forgery is bailable under Kenyan law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants demonstrated a real and imminent threat of arrest by the police for a bailable offence (forgery) following a tax dispute with the Kenya Revenue Authority. The applicants had shown willingness to cooperate with police investigations and attend summonses. The court held that anticipatory bail is available in Kenyan jurisprudence to protect constitutional liberties where there is a credible threat of arrest for a bailable offence. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail, requiring the applicants to execute personal bonds of Kshs.1,000,000/- each, and directed that the police may summon them for statements or interrogation but should not place them...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Applicants to execute personal bonds of Kshs.1,000,000/- each before the Deputy Registrar.
- Police may summon applicants for statements or interrogation but shall not place them in custody pursuant to this order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Misc Crim Appli 45 of 2007
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL PENDING ARREST (ANTICIPATORY) UNDER THE
COURT’S INHERENT ORIGINAL JURISIDICTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 3(3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, CHAPTER 75, LAWS
OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: COMMON LAW AND ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW
BETWEEN
ASHOK LABSHANKER DOSHI
AMIT ASHOK DOSHI ……………………………………APPLICANTS
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ……………………….......................………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
By a Summons dated 9th July 2007, Ashok Labshanker Doshi and Amit Ashok Doshi hereinafter referred as the applicants, beseeched this court to grant them bail before arrest. The summons is supported by the affidavit of Ashok Labshanker Doshi sworn on the 9th day of July 2007. The duo are directors and shareholders in Doshi Ironmongers Ltd.
The facts leading to the filing of this summons can easily be deduced from the facts deponed in the affidavit of Ashok Labshanker Doshi. It is the applicants’ assertion that Kenya Revenue Authority through its Deputy Commissioner wrote to the applicants in the month of March 2007 informing them that the authority had carried out a thorough audit of M/s Doshi Iron Mongers Ltd. and acknowledged that the company had paid all the taxes for the year 2003. However in the month of April 2007, Kenya Revenue Authority officers in conjunction with the police raided the company’s premises where upon they carried away computers, files, documents and softwares without making any inventory of what they carried away. In the month of May Kenya Revenue Authority made a demand to the applicant’s company to remit taxes to it in the sum of Kshs.124,720,037/-. Thereafter Kenya Revenue Authority and the applicants exchanged various correspondences over the outstanding taxes. In the end, the applicants lodged an objection against the Kenya Revenue Authority’s assessment of the outstanding tax pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act Cap.470 Laws of Kenya. There is evidence that Kenya Revenue Authority made threats to the applicants to institute criminal charges against the applicants and their company if they did not remit the taxes as demanded.
The real threat from Kenya Revenue Authority was sensed when the police issued a notice against the applicants pursuant to Section 22 of the Police Act to compel them to attend at the police station to record statements for alleged offences of forgery. It is the applicants fear that they may be arrested and placed in police custody in the process, hence they have come to court to seek for what is popularly known as anticipatory bail.
I have considered the grounds set out in the summons and the facts deponed in the affidavit of Ashok Labshanker Doshi. I have also taken into account the oral submissions made by Mr. Khanna, learned advocate for the applicants. The applicants are seeking for the protection of their liberties as guaranteed by the constitution. The offence disclosed by the summons issued by the police under S.22 of the Police Act is that of forgery. Such an offence is bailable in law. The applicants do not want to be kept in police custody but they are at the same time ready to honour the police summonses by submitting themselves to the police. I am convinced the application has merit and is available in our jurisprudence. I allow the application. Let the applicants bind themselves by signing personal bonds of Kshs.1,000,000/- each before the Deputy Registrar of this court. This order however does not bar the police from summoning them to the police station to record statements or for interrogation. The police should not place them in custody in view of the above orders.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 11th day of July 2007.
J. K. SERGON
J U D G E