[2015] KEHC 250 (KLR)
The court found that, although there was no direct evidence of likely interference with witnesses, the presence of the accused in their community could intimidate or threaten witnesses, negatively impacting the case. Pre-bail reports indicated that all three accused were not welcome in their community, faced threats...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 250 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Benjamin Kithinji; Respondent: Benard Mutura; Respondent: Cosmas Kirimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 63 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Application
- Outcome
- bond denied; accused to remain in remand pending trial
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Flight Risk, Community Security, Witness Intimidation
- 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
Benjamin Kithinji
Respondent
Benard Mutura
Respondent
Cosmas Kirimi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bond Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be released on bond pending trial.
- 2 Whether the accused persons pose a flight risk or threat to community security if released.
- 3 Whether the accused persons' release would interfere with witnesses or the course of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although there was no direct evidence of likely interference with witnesses, the presence of the accused in their community could intimidate or threaten witnesses, negatively impacting the case. Pre-bail reports indicated that all three accused were not welcome in their community, faced threats to their safety, and were considered flight risks. The court determined that these constituted compelling reasons to deny bond, prioritizing the integrity of the trial and the safety of both the accused and the community. Consequently, the application for bond was declined, and the accused were ordered to remain in remand pending trial.
Court Disposition
bond denied; accused to remain in remand pending trial
Orders
- The application for bond by the accused persons is declined.
- The accused persons shall remain in remand pending the hearing of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 63 OF 2015
REPUBLIC.......................................PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
BENJAMIN KITHINJI ..................... 1ST ACCUSED
BENAR5D MUTURA ...................... 2ND ACCUSED
COSMAS KIRIMI ........................... 3RD ACCUSED
RULING
Benjamin Kithinji, Benard Mutura and Cosmas Kirimi are jointly charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. They filed an application dated 8/11/2015, seeking to be released on bond pending the hearing of this case. The applications are supported by their affidavits in which they depone that this case is likely to take long to be heard and that they are willing to abide by all the conditions that the court may impose.
The application was opposed and a replying affidavit was sworn by IP Charles Charo the Investigation Officer, who deponed that the murder was committed recently and there is a lot of animosity on the ground; that the accuseds’ lives will be in danger if released; that the accused persons have no fixed abode and are a flight risk if released on bond.
The court called for pre-bail reports which I have considered along with the affidavits sworn herein. In such an application, the primary consideration is whether an accused will turn up for his trial. Other considerations are whether the accused will interfere with witnesses; whether their security will be guaranteed and the court also considers their antecedents.
As regards the first appellant, the pre-bail report indicates that the community is not to receive him back because he is a habitual offender; that he has even served jail terms and that he commits offences and disappears from the area and that his life will be in danger if released on bond, and that he is a flight risk.
As respects accused 2, he is said to be a close associate of accused 1, involved in criminality; that the community are likely to carry out revenge attacks on him if released on bond and that he is a flight risk.
Just like the other two, the report on accused 3 was negative; that the community is not ready to have him released on bond because of his perceived involvement in hiring criminals in his miraa business and that he is likely to be harmed if released; that his home has already been burnt.
Considering the above reports, it is my considered view that even though there is no evidence of likely interference with witnesses, the accused’s presence in their community where the witnesses hail from, the witnesses are likely to feel intimidated or threatened due to accuseds’ presence and therefore have a negative bearing on the case. I find that there are compellable reasons that warrant the accused persons being denied bond. I therefore decline to grant accused persons bond. They will remain in remand pending the hearing of this case.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
15/12/2015
In the Presence of:
Mr. Mulochi for State
Mrs. Ntarangwi for Accused
Accused, All Present
Ibrahim/Peninah, Court Assistants