Republic v AKR [2021] KEHC 6184 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6184 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- RB Ngetich
- Case number
- Criminal Case E027 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- RB Ngetich
- Case number
- Criminal Case E027 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, based on the pre-bail report, the accused is not a flight risk and is unlikely to interfere with witnesses. However, the accused is considered a danger to the victim, who is a minor, and to the victim's father. Given the risk to their security if the accused returns to his family, the court held that it would not be appropriate to release the accused on bond at this stage. The accused may review his bond application at a later date if circumstances change.
Court disposition
bond_denied
Orders
- The accused is denied bond at this stage.
- The accused may review his bond application at a later date.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Rita RotichAKR
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Bore03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Case / Bond Application Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused should be released on bond pending trial.
- 02
Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bond to the accused.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the accused argued that there are no compelling reasons to deny bond. He challenged the prosecution's allegations, noting that they were not supported by an affidavit from the investigating officer, and urged the court to disregard them.
- Respondent
- The prosecution opposed the bond application, citing the likelihood of harm to the accused by members of the public and the accused's conduct of going into hiding after the offence, necessitating tracking via mobile phone.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya
An accused person is entitled to bond unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.
- 02
Republic v. Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR
Compelling reasons may include risk to the safety of victims or witnesses, likelihood of absconding, or interference with witnesses.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, based on the pre-bail report, the accused is not a flight risk and is unlikely to interfere with witnesses. However, the accused is considered a danger to the victim, who is a minor, and to the victim's father. Given the risk to their security if the accused returns to his family, the court held that it would not be appropriate to release the accused on bond at this stage. The accused may review his bond application at a later date if circumstances change.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the allegations by the prosecution were not supported by an affidavit from the investigating officer.
- The accused is not a flight risk and may not interfere with witnesses, as per the pre-bail report.
Court disposition
bond_denied
- The accused is denied bond at this stage.
- The accused may review his bond application at a later date.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E027 OF 2020
REPUBLIC...............................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
AKR....................................................ACCUSED
RULING
1. This is a ruling on bond application made by Mr. Bore Advocate on 27th January, 2021. He applied that accused be released on bond with reasonable terms.
2. Ms. Rita Rotichfor state opposed the application on ground that there was a likelihood that members of public would harm the accused. She also submitted that the accused went into hiding after commission of the offence and he was tracked using his mobile phone.
3. In a rejoinder, Mr. Bore for accused submitted that the allegations by the state counsel are not in affidavit sworn by the investigating officer and prayed that the court do disregard the allegations. He submitted that there are no compelling reasons to deny accused bond.
4. I have considered submissions by the state counsel and defence counsel. I have also perused affidavit sworn by No. 237797 I.P. Harrison Dzombo on 5th November, 2020 and pre-bail report filed on 23rd February, 2021.
5. I note that the probation officer’s report indicated that the accused is likely to be a danger to the victim who is 12 years old and his father. From the report, the accused is not a flight risk and may not interfere with witnesses.
6. Having considered the above, it is my view that it will not be appropriate to release accused on bond now as he will be going back to his family where he is considered a threat to their security.
7. I therefore deny accused bond at this stage. He may review his bond application at a later date.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered via zoom at NakuruThis9th day of June, 2021
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Schola/Jeniffer - Court Assistant
Accused present in person
Rita for State
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.