[2018] KEHC 8649 (KLR)
The court held that while bail is a constitutional right, it may be denied if compelling reasons exist. The pre-bail reports indicated that the 1st accused had previously jumped bail and the 3rd accused had disappeared after the incident, both demonstrating a real risk of flight. These constituted exceptional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8649 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Miriti M’Thumatia Tharamba; Defendant: Francis Mwenda; Defendant: Romano Mugambi; Defendant: Julius Kirimi M’Mwitari alias (Malaya)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 53 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail/bond Application
- Outcome
- Bail granted to 2nd and 4th accused; bail denied to 1st and 3rd accused.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Flight Risk, Constitutional Rights, Pre Bail Reports
- 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
Miriti M’Thumatia Tharamba
Defendant
Francis Mwenda
Defendant
Romano Mugambi
Defendant
Julius Kirimi M’Mwitari alias (Malaya)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail/bond Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons are entitled to bail or bond under the Constitution.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny bail or bond to any of the accused persons.
- 3 Whether any of the accused are flight risks warranting denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while bail is a constitutional right, it may be denied if compelling reasons exist. The pre-bail reports indicated that the 1st accused had previously jumped bail and the 3rd accused had disappeared after the incident, both demonstrating a real risk of flight. These constituted exceptional circumstances justifying denial of bail for the 1st and 3rd accused. For the 2nd and 4th accused, no exceptional circumstances or flight risk were established, and thus they were entitled to bail. The court exercised its discretion accordingly, granting bail to the 2nd and 4th accused and denying it to the 1st and 3rd accused.
Court Disposition
Bail granted to 2nd and 4th accused; bail denied to 1st and 3rd accused.
Orders
- 2nd and 4th accused to be released on a personal bond of KShs.200,000 with a surety of a similar amount.
- Bail is declined for the 1st and 3rd accused, who shall remain in custody throughout their trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 53 OF 2016
REPUBLIC ………………………………….………...… PROSECUTOR
-VERSUS-
MIRITI M’THUMATIA THARAMBA………....………..…...1ST ACCUSED
FRANCIS MWENDA ………………………….…………. 2ND ACCUSED
ROMANO MUGAMBI ………………………..….…….…. 3RD ACCUSED
JULIUS KIRIMI M’MWITARI ALIAS (MALAYA) …........... 4TH ACCUSED
RULING
I have considered the application for bail/bond by the accused. Bond is a Constitutional right of every accused person unless there are compelling reasons under Article 47 of the Constitution. In the present case, I have considered the pre-bail reports on each accused as follows:-
1st Accused: There are exceptional circumstances. He is a flight risk as he has previously jumped bail.
2nd Accused: There exists no exceptional circumstances.
3rd Accused: There exist exceptional circumstances. If it is alleged that he had disappeared after the incident and the likelihood of him being a flight risk is real.
4th Accused: There are no exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, the 2nd and 4th accused persons may be released on a personal bond of KShs.200,000/= with a surety of a similar amount while bond is declined as relates the 1st and 3rd accused. They shall remain in custody throughout their trial. Mention on 17/7/2018 to give a date for trial.
DATED and DELIVERED at Meru this 25th day of January, 2018.
A. MABEYA
JUDGE
25/01/2018