[2015] KEHC 4898 (KLR)
The court found that although bail is a constitutional right, it is not absolute and may be denied if compelling reasons exist. In this case, the prosecution's objection was based on the fact that the witnesses are close relatives of the accused, making it likely that the accused would interfere with them if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4898 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Henry Kirimi Kimbo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 45 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
- Outcome
- application for bond declined; accused to remain in remand pending trial
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference, 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
Respondent
Henry Kirimi Kimbo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Bail Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for the offence of murder.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the applicant bail under the Constitution and Penal Code.
- 3 Whether the likelihood of interference with witnesses constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although bail is a constitutional right, it is not absolute and may be denied if compelling reasons exist. In this case, the prosecution's objection was based on the fact that the witnesses are close relatives of the accused, making it likely that the accused would interfere with them if released on bond. The court noted that this concern was not addressed or denied by the applicant or in the Pre-Bail Report. Given the proximity of the witnesses to the accused and the risk of interference, the court held that there was a compelling reason to deny bail. Therefore, the application for bond was declined, and the accused was ordered to remain in remand pending the hearing...
Court Disposition
application for bond declined; accused to remain in remand pending trial
Orders
- The application for bond is declined.
- The accused shall remain in remand until the hearing and determination of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MERU
HC CR NO. 45 OF 2013
REPUBLIC………………………………………....….RESPONDENT
VRS
HENRY KIRIMI KIMBO……………………………………ACCUSED
RULING
The applicant is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. By the application dated 27th January, 2015, he seeks to be released on bond pending hearing and determination of the case. The grounds are outlined in his supporting affidavit. He deposed that the offence with which he is charged is bailable; that he is presumed innocent till proved otherwise; that he does not know of any compelling reason that would warrant the court denying to grant him bond because he is a Kenyan citizen with a permanent residence and is not a flight risk.
The application was opposed and a replying affidavit was filed by PC Moses Maina of Chuka Police Station who deponed that the accused murdered his own father; that the witnesses are close family members i.e. cousins, sister in-law and that if released, he is likely to interfere with them and defeat the cause of justice. He urged that the right to bail is not absolute if there are compelling reasons to deny the bond.
I have considered the application, the affidavits, submissions of counsel and the Pre-Bail Report prepared by the Probation Officer. Though bail is a constitutional right, it is not absolute because the court will not grant it if there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bond. Before grant of bond the court takes it consideration the following;
1. That the accused will turn up for his trial which is the primary consideration;
2. That the accused will not interfere with witnesses;
3. The previous character and antecedents of accused;
4. The security of the accused;
5. The gravity of the offence and severity of the sentence;
It seems that there is no objection from the deceased’s family for the release of accused on bond. However, the Probation Officer did not go into details about the brother who was objected to accused’s release.
The respondent’s objection is based on the fact that the witnesses are close relatives of the accused and he is likely to interfere with them. That fact has not been denied nor did the Pre- Bail Report address it. The witnesses are close relatives of accused whom he can easily influence once released.
That being the position, in my view, there is a compelling reason to deny the accused bond because it is very likely that he will interfere with the said witnesses. For that reason alone, I decline to grant accused bond. He will therefore remain in remand till the hearing a determination of this case.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 4TH MAY, 2015.
R. V. P. WENDOH
JUDGE
Present:
Mr. Musyoka for the State
Mr. Kiogora for Accused
Faith, Court Assistant
Accused, Present