[2018] KEHC 310 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly exercised discretion in granting bail, as the pre-bond report did not establish compelling reasons to deny bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere possibility of interference with witnesses, without concrete evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 310 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Ronald Cheruiyot Yegon
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bomet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 76 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Decision
- Outcome
- Application for revision dismissed; bail order by trial magistrate upheld.
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Bail and Bond, Compelling Reasons, Sexual Offences, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Ronald Cheruiyot Yegon
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Bail Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in granting bail to the accused despite the prosecution's concerns of possible interference with witnesses.
- 2 Whether the pre-bond report constituted compelling reasons to deny bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly exercised discretion in granting bail, as the pre-bond report did not establish compelling reasons to deny bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere possibility of interference with witnesses, without concrete evidence or sworn affidavit from the investigating officer, does not suffice to deny bail. The court further noted that any subsequent interference can be addressed by the trial court through cancellation of bond. Therefore, there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision to grant bail to the accused.
Court Disposition
Application for revision dismissed; bail order by trial magistrate upheld.
Orders
- No interference with the trial magistrate's order granting bail to the accused.
- Original file to be transmitted to the trial court for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BOMET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO 76 OF 2018
REPUBLIC……………………………………….…………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
RONALD CHERUIYOT YEGON………………………...RESPONDENT
RULING
The respondent was charged with the offence of defilement C.S 8 (10 as read with Section 84(4) of the Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006 in Cr. Case No. 32 of 2018.
The particulars being that on the 28th day of July 2018 within Bomet County, intentionally unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of MCL a child aged 17 years.
When the case was mentioned for plea, the prosecutor told the court that there was likelihood of interference by Accused of witnesses. The court called for a pre bond report.
Upon receipt of that report the court noted that though the report was not favourable it did not raise any compelling reasons and proceeded to grant the accused an bond of Kshs.100,000/= with on surety of similar amount. It is this grant of bail that the state calls for revision.
Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution provides that an accused person has the right to be released on bond unless there are compelling reasons not to.
The learned trial magistrate did not find any compelling reasons. The pre-bond report is not in itself binding on the court. If there are fears of the accused interfering with witnesses he can be warned by the court. If the court is satisfied that there are attempts or likelihood of interference, it can cancel the bond. The matter does not have to be brought before the High Court but applications can still be made before the lower court with the investigating officer being required to swear an affidavit as to the allegations and if need be being called upon to be cross-examined on the contents of his affidavit. I find no good grounds to interfere with the orders of the learned trial magistrate grant of bond. The original file to be transmitted to the court for hearing and determination.
Mention on 22/1/2019 before the Trial Magistrate.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
18/12/2018
Ruling delivered and dated this 18/12/2018 in the presence of Miss Kariuki for the state.
Mr. Koech (absent)
M. MUYA
JUDGE
18/12/2018