[2018] KEHC 441 (KLR)
The court found that investigations into the murder charge were still ongoing, with critical DNA analysis results pending, which could significantly affect the case. Given the incomplete state of investigations and the potential impact of the awaited evidence, the court determined it was premature to consider the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 441 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: JNK
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 56 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- ruling on bail deferred
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Murder Charge, Compelling Reasons, Pre Bail Report, Pending Investigations
- 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
JNK
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial for murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether ongoing investigations and pending DNA results constitute sufficient grounds to defer the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that investigations into the murder charge were still ongoing, with critical DNA analysis results pending, which could significantly affect the case. Given the incomplete state of investigations and the potential impact of the awaited evidence, the court determined it was premature to consider the bail application. The ruling on bail was therefore deferred until investigations are completed, prioritizing the integrity of the investigative process over immediate consideration of the accused's application for release.
Court Disposition
ruling on bail deferred
Orders
- Ruling on the bail application is deferred until investigations are completed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 56 OF 2018
REPUBLIC.............PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
JNK..................................ACCUSED
RULING ON BAIL
1. The accused person JNK is facing trial for one count of murder contrary to section 203 of the Penal Code. He is alleged to have murdered his 9 year old son RM on 15th October 2018.
2. A formal application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 19th November, 2018. The application is premised under Article 49(1)(h)of the Constitutionand Section 123 of Criminal Procedure Code. The application is predicated on five grounds namely:
a) That prior to the applicant’s arrest the applicant had a family with children for which he was the main breadwinner, whereas he would seek to be released on bail/bond to enable him continue providing parental, care, control and affection for.
b) That the applicant is a young man who led a meaningful life and engaged himself in income generating activities and he seeks the court to consider this and release him on bond to continue fending for himself and engaging in meaningful tasks.
c) That the applicant is not aware of any compelling reasons to necessitate the denial of bail or bond as he is not in any was going to interfere with the witnesses besides he undertakes to abide by any bond terms set by the court.
d) That it is in the interest of justice that he be admitted to bond/bail pending trial as he is being ready and willing to abide by the terms set by the court and to attend court as and when required.
e) That any interests of justice tilt toward admitting the applicant bail/bond rather than denying him.
3. The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the accused of same date. In addition to giving personal background, the accused pledges his commitment to observe conditions of his release.
4. Mr. Kirimi holding for Mrs. Maina, advocate for the accused urged the court to grant lenient bond terms. Counsel urged that the deceased was still in the mortuary arguing that since accused was sole bread winner, burial of the child is yet to take place. Counsel urged that the accused needed to go back home to arrange for the burial.
5. Mr. Otieno Learned Prosecution Counsel did not oppose bail subject to findings by a Probation Officer. He urged court to call for a Pre-Bail Report in order to tell what the family of the deceased felt about the accused release on bond. Counsel also urged that he would request the court to give strict bond terms if it was mindful to release accused on bail.
6. As Counsel submitted two issues transpired. The first being that the accused was the father of the deceased. That also meant that the witnesses in the case are mostly members of the accused family court urged the Prosecution Counsel to find out from wife of the accused who was present in court, whether she opposed his release on bond. The indication given to the court was that she was not opposed.
7. The second fact which came out in the prosecution counsel’s submission was that the State was awaiting results of DNA analysis on which this case hinges.
8. That submission has brought to the fore that the investigations into this case are not complete. The results awaited for could change the outlook of this case and the impact it may have to the investigations into the case. I find that it is rather too early to consider this application given the fact that the investigations are still ongoing.
9. For this reason, I defer the ruling on the application until such time that investigations into the case will be completed.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 13th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE