[2021] KEHC 1173 (KLR)
The court found that both accused had antecedents indicating a likelihood to abscond trial, including histories of substance abuse, running away from home or school, and lack of family support for standing surety. The social inquiry reports corroborated these concerns. The court held that these factors constituted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 1173 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Miron Kipngetich; Defendant: Ivyne Chepkoech
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E021 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- bail denied; accused to remain in custody pending trial
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Compelling Reasons, Presumption of Innocence, Flight Risk
- 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
Miron Kipngetich
Defendant
Ivyne Chepkoech
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused persons should be released on bail pending trial.
- 2 Whether there exist compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both accused had antecedents indicating a likelihood to abscond trial, including histories of substance abuse, running away from home or school, and lack of family support for standing surety. The social inquiry reports corroborated these concerns. The court held that these factors constituted compelling reasons to deny bail, as the primary purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial. Consequently, the applications for bail were denied and the accused were ordered to remain in custody pending trial.
Court Disposition
bail denied; accused to remain in custody pending trial
Orders
- Applications for bail by both accused are denied.
- Both accused shall remain in custody pending their trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BOMET
CRIMINAL CASE NO. E021 OF 2021
REPUBLIC................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
MIRON KIPNGETICH.............................1ST ACCUSED
IVYNE CHEPKOECH.............................2ND ACCUSED
RULING
1. Miron Kipngetich and Ivyne Chepkoech (1st and 2nd Accused respectively) are charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on the 14th October 2021 at Siongiroi location in Chepalungu Sub-County within Bomet County jointly murdered Anastacia Chepchumba.
2. They took plea on 9th November 2021 and denied the charges. Their learned defence Counsel Mr. Kenduiwo made an application for a bail assessment report in respect of each Accused.
3. At the pre-trial session held on 24th November 2021, Counsel made an application for the Accused to be released on bail. In urging the report, Counsel adverted that the Bail Assessment reports were not favourable to the Accused. He however urged the court to ignore the reports and uphold the trite law that the Accused were innocent until proven guilty.
4. For the 1st Accused, Counsel submitted that he was not a flight risk and that he came from a humble background. For the 2nd Accused, Counsel submitted that she was also not a flight risk and came from a humble background. Finally, Counsel submitted that there were no compelling reasons to deny the Accused bond.
5. The application was opposed by the State on grounds that there were compelling reasons to deny them bond. Prosecution Counsel Mr. Murithi submitted that the 1st Accused abused drugs and was a flight risk. That because of his antecedents none of his family members was willing to stand surety for him and that his safety was not guaranteed. For the 2nd Accused, Counsel submitted that she was a flight risk as the probation report had demonstrated that she had the antecedent of running away from her home. That the community was hostile to the prospect of her being released on bond.
6. There is no contestation that an accused person is entitled to bail under Article 49 (i) h of the Constitution. The only fetter is the existence of compelling reasons. It is also trite that any accused person enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty (See R. V. Danson Mgunya and Kassim Sheebwana Mohamed, Mombasa Criminal Case No. 26 of 2008 [2010] eKLR)
7. I have considered the application, the respective submissions and the social inquiry reports. The social inquiry report in respect of the 1st Accused states that he abused drugs and generally led a reckless life. The family members are said to have termed him a flight risk since he would make regular disappearances from his place of abode where he lived with his grandmother. For the 2nd Accused the report states that she had the antecedent of having run away from school and frequently disappeared from home. That she abused alcohol and drugs which led to the abuse of her child leading to the present charge. According to the report none of the family members were willing to stand surety for her.
8. It is clear from the above that there exist a compelling reason not to release the two Accused. Given their antecedents I am persuaded that they were likely to abscond trial. It is to be remembered that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the Accused’s attendance at trial. Their respective applications are thus denied. They will remain in custody pending their trial.
9. Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
....................................
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Mr. Kenduiwo, Mr. Murithi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).