https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9907

Kodobo v Director of Criminal Investigations & another (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E066 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9907 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9907 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Garsen Miscellaneous Criminal Application E066 of 2026 JN Njagi, J July 9, 2026 Between Ismael Bodha Kodobo Applicant and Director of Criminal Investigations 1st Respondent Inspector General of Police 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant has filed an application dated 15th December 2025 seeking for anticipatory bail pending arrest and or charge by the Respondents. Further that the Respondents and their officers be restrained by an order of injunction from arbitrarily summoning, arresting, incarcerating, or interfering with the Applicant’s freedom of movement. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant sworn on the 16th December 2025 in which he depones that he was on the night of 15th December 2025 in bed at his house when policemen appeared at his gate and demanded that he opens the gate or they throw teargas into the place. They damaged the gate as they tried to get entry into the house. That villagers were attracted by the commotion and prevented further escalation. That he later learnt from Bura OCS that the individuals were sent by the County Criminal Investigations Officer. 3.It is the apprehension of the Applicant that the police are intent on arresting, harassing and intimidating him without lawful reason. He seeks for this court to grant him anticipatory bail pending arrest. He says that unless the same is granted his constitutional rights to liberty, dignity and security are likely to be violated. That he is willing to appear before the court or any lawful authority, if properly summoned. 4.This court on the 16th December 2025, granted the Applicant anticipatory bond of Kshs.50,000 and ordered for the application to be served with the application. The Respondent did not file a response to the application. In the absence of such, Counsel for the Applicant asked the court to grant the orders sought. 5.I have considered the application. Anticipatory bail has been issued in Kenya to prevent violation or threatened violation of rights protected under the Bill of Rights. In doing so, care ought to be taken that the order issued does not interfere with the constitutional mandate of investigative agencies to investigate crime. In the case of Mandiki Luyeye -v- Republic (2015) eKLR Ngenye J. (as she then was) held that:I have considered the respective submissions and I take the following view of the application. Anticipatory bail shall be granted only when an Applicant demonstrates that his Constitutional right has been violated or is likely to be violated…….Similar sentiments were observed in the case of Eric Mailu vs Republic and 2 others Nairobi Misc. Cr. Application No. 24 of 2013 in which it was emphasized that anticipatory bail would only issue when there was serious breach of a citizen’s rights by organs of state. Accordingly, it is salient that anticipatory bail is aimed at giving remedy for breach of infringement of fundamental Constitutional rights in conformity with what the Constitution envisages constitutes protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of a citizen. It cannot issue where an Applicant labours under apprehension founded on unsubstantiated claims. The fear of breach to fundamental right must be real and demonstrable. An Applicant must demonstrate the breach by acts and facts constituting the alleged breach. 6.In the instant case the Applicant has stated that the police went to his residence and threatened to break into his house. They were thwarted from doing so by the intervention my members of the public. The averment by the Applicant shows that the police wanted to arrest him. 7.Given an opportunity to explain the reason behind the attempted arrest on the Applicant, the Respondents did not make a response to the application. This invites the conclusion that the police did not have lawful reason for arresting the Applicant. In the absence of any explanation for the attempted arrest, I find the application for anticipatory bail to be merited. 8.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail of Kshs.50,000/= granted to the Applicant is confirmed. The respondents are barred from arresting the Applicant in relation to any complaint related to the incident of 15/12/25. 9.For avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered that in case the Respondents intend to interrogate the Application on any complaint that prompted the incident of 15th December 2025, they shall summon him to their offices with a notice of not less than 7 days and upon any such interrogation they shall release him on the sufficiency of the bond granted by this court pending any further action by themselves.Orders accordingly. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT GARSEN THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.J. N. NJAGIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Oluoch for the RespondentMiss Hajila - AbsentCourt Assistant: Farhan