[2016] KEHC 7734 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's allegation that the 2nd accused was a flight risk due to going into hiding was not substantiated by detailed evidence, such as affidavits outlining attempts to trace or apprehend him. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and held that bail decisions should not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7734 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Antony Kyalo Ndaka; Defendant: Michael Kitheka Mutua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 45 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- Bail granted to the 2nd accused on terms similar to the 1st accused.
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Flight Risk, Presumption of Innocence
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Antony Kyalo Ndaka
Defendant
Michael Kitheka Mutua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd accused should be granted bail pending trial.
- 2 Whether the allegation of flight risk is sufficiently substantiated to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution's allegation that the 2nd accused was a flight risk due to going into hiding was not substantiated by detailed evidence, such as affidavits outlining attempts to trace or apprehend him. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and held that bail decisions should not be based on unproven allegations. In the absence of exceptional circumstances specific to the 2nd accused, and given that his co-accused was released on similar terms without objection from the prosecution, the court ruled that the 2nd accused should also be granted bail on the same terms.
Court Disposition
Bail granted to the 2nd accused on terms similar to the 1st accused.
Orders
- The 2nd accused is granted bail pending trial upon executing a bond of Ksh.500,000.
- The 2nd accused must provide one surety of Ksh.500,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL CASE NO 45 OF 2015
REPUBLIC……………………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
ANTONY KYALO NDAKA….…………….1ST ACCUSED
MICHAEL KITHEKA MUTUA……...……2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. The 2nd accused has applied for release on bail upon reasonable terms pointing out that his co-accused in this consolidated charge is out on a bond Ksh.500,000/- with one surety. The Prosecution has opposed the bail application by the 2nd accused on the principal ground that the accused is flight risk alleging that “upon commission of the offence in 18th day of May 2015 the 2nd accused went into hiding and was arrested on the first day of January 2016. ” The prosecution urged the court to strike a balance between competing interest of the public and that of the 2nd accused to be released on bond and order that the matter be set down for speedy hearing rather than release the accused on bail.
2. Of course, bail is personal to the particular accused person and the accused cannot insist on being released or being released upon the same terms as his co-accused. The circumstances of one accused person may call for refusal of bail or bail upon different terms from those imposed on his co-accused. However, generally, unless there are special circumstances, accused persons in the same case should be released and upon same terms of bail.
3. In this case, the 2nd accused is alleged to have gone into hiding upon the commission o of the offence until he was arrested some 7 months later. However, this fact of his having committed the offence is subject of the pending trial and it cannot be taken to be proved that the accused committed the offence and went into hiding. As held by Porter, J. in Watoro v Republic, (1991) KLR 281, 284:
“[It] is important for the Court to bear in mind, and the reason for the caution to remember the presumption of innocence, is that it would be wrong to leap to the conclusion that the accused was guilty merely because he had been charged and decide the bail application on that basis.”
4. The primary consideration in the grant or refusal of bail is whether the accused will turn up for the trial of his case. In the circumstances of this case, the allegation of his having gone into hiding is not supported by detailed affidavit showing, say, attempts at tracing the whereabouts of the accused and the number of visits to his home or his likely places of abode or work in an attempt to apprehend the accused to justify a conclusion that the accused had gone into hiding.
5. I consider that the 2nd accused should in the absence of any exceptional circumstance with respect to him be released upon the similar terms as the 1st accused for whose release on bail the DPP did not object. Accordingly, the 2nd accused is granted bail pending trial upon terms that –
The accused will execute a bond of Ksh.500,000/-
The accused will provide one surety of the same amount.
The accused will every 30 days attend the Officer Commanding Police station within whose jurisdiction lies the area of Iiaani Market, Iiaani sub-location, Kivaa location of Masinga sub-County of Machakos County where the offence charged herein is alleged to have occurred.
6. For clarity, the DPP’s representative will attend the hearing for bond surety approval for the accused’s surety.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2016.
EDWARD M. MURIITHI
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr. Kimeu for the Accused/Applicant
Mrs. Saoli for the Republic/Respondent
Ms Doreen - Court Assistant.