[2019] KEHC 8227 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish compelling reasons to deny bail. The allegations that the applicant fled after the incident, was preparing to abscond, or had no fixed abode were not substantiated with evidence. The court emphasized that even if the applicant had left his home, this alone...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Republic; Applicant: Nimrod Kibuku Kiranga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 4 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
- Outcome
- application_allowed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Compelling Reasons, 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
Nimrod Kibuku Kiranga
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Bail Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons to deny bail to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish compelling reasons to deny bail. The allegations that the applicant fled after the incident, was preparing to abscond, or had no fixed abode were not substantiated with evidence. The court emphasized that even if the applicant had left his home, this alone does not constitute a compelling reason under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. The prosecution did not provide proof of the applicant's alleged plans to travel abroad or lack of a fixed residence. Consequently, the applicant's constitutional right to bail prevails, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure his attendance at trial.
Court Disposition
application_allowed
Orders
- The applicant may be released on bond of Kshs. 500,000 with one surety.
- The applicant must deposit his passport with the court pending disposal of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2019
REPUBLIC..................................................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
NIMROD KIBUKU KIRANGA...........................................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. This application seeks for orders for release on bail pending hearing and determination of this case.
2. The grounds supporting the application is that the applicant has a constitutional right to be released on bail and that he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
3. It is further stated that the applicant is ready to abide with any conditions the court may impose and that no compelling reasons have been given not to release him.
4. In an affidavit sworn by the investigation officer PC John Melvin Okwalo the application was opposed on grounds that the suspect fled his home immediately after the incident and police took about one year to arrest him.
5. The Investigating Officer states that he has information that the applicant is preparing to take flight to an unknown destination. The applicant was planning to travel to Qatar and that he has no fixed abode.
6. Ms. Kimotho for the applicant submitted that the applicant had gone to stay with his mother at their home in Ruiru from where he was arrested. It was not true that the applicant had fled as alleged.
7. This application is brought under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution which provides: -
49(1) An accused person has the right: -
(h) to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
8. The prosecution state that the accused fled to escape arrest immediately after the commission of the offence. As argued by the defence, taking flight before arrest and charge is not a compelling reason to deny bail. It is denied that the applicant took flight for he says he went to stay with his mother at their home in Ruiru.
9. The investigating officer did not find out where the family of the accused lived after the commission of the offence. Neither did they make any effort to find out whose home the accused was residing at the time of arrest. That information would have helped to respond to the denial of the applicant that he had fled.
10. I find that it has not been established that the applicant fled after the incident. Even if he did, I am not convinced that this is a compelling reason not to release him.
11. The investigating officer did not annex any information of proof that the applicant is planning or preparing to take flight or to travel to Qatar as alleged.
12. The allegation that the applicant has no fixed abode has not been satisfied so as to make a compelling reason out of it.
13. It is my considered opinion that the prosecution have not established before this court that there is any compelling reason why the applicant should not be released.
14. I find the application merited and allow it on the following terms;
i. The applicant may be released on bond of Kshs. 500,000/= with one surety.
ii. To deposit his passport with this court pending disposal of the case.
iii.Not to leave the jurisdiction of this court without its permission.
iv. To attend monthly mentions before the Deputy Registrar until the case is finally disposed of.
15. It is hereby so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Ms. Mati for State
Ms. Kimotho for Applicant
Applicant present in person