[2016] KEHC 5127 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to support allegations that the accused would interfere with witnesses or that he went into hiding after the offence. The court considered the prebail report, which showed mixed reactions from the deceased's family and the public, but noted that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Dickens Mungathia Karigi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 8 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
- Outcome
- application for bail granted
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Bail Application, Murder Charge, Pretrial Release, Compelling Reasons, Witness Interference
- 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
Dickens Mungathia Karigi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 3rd accused is entitled to bail pending trial for murder.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to deny the accused bail.
- 3 Whether allegations of witness interference and flight risk are substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to support allegations that the accused would interfere with witnesses or that he went into hiding after the offence. The court considered the prebail report, which showed mixed reactions from the deceased's family and the public, but noted that objections from the victim's family, based on emotional grounds, are not sufficient to deny bail. No compelling reasons were disclosed to justify denial of bail. Therefore, the accused was entitled to be released on bond or cash bail pending trial.
Court Disposition
application for bail granted
Orders
- The 3rd accused may be released on bond of KShs.200,000 plus one surety of like sum or cash bail of KShs.50,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 0F 2016
REPUBLIC…......................…………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
SAMUEL KINYUA NCHEBERE……………….…..1ST ACCUSED
DANIEL KAREITHI NCHEBER...........................2ND ACCUSED
DICKENS MUNGATHIA KARIGI..........................3RD ACCUSED
RULING
The 3rd accused person, Dickens Mugathia faces a charge of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. By an application dated 2/3/2016, the 3rd accused seeks to be released on bond on grounds that he has been in custody since his arrest on 9th February 2016; that the offence is bailable; that he is a resident of Meru where he has a family and he is not a flight risk and lastly that he is sickly.
The application was opposed. PC Joseph Ratemo, the Investigations Office swore an affidavit to the effect that after commission of the offence, accused disappeared from the area from 3rd January, 2016 till 6th January, 2016 when he was arrested from his hideout; that he is likely to interfere with witnesses and that the accused had before arrest, threatened the witnesses.
I have considered both affidavits sworn by both sides. The court also asked for a prebail report which it has considered.
The paramount consideration in an application for bond is whether the accused will turn up for his defence. Other considerations are the character of accused, whether the accused will interfere with witnesses and whether the accused’s life will be in danger if released.
The Investigation Officer alleges that the accused will interfere with witnesses but in such an allegation, he must avail evidence in support thereof. None was availed. There was also an allegation that the accused went into hiding after the offence was committed but again, there is no evidence that the accused went underground. That allegation must have been supported by evidence which it was not.
The court called for a prebail report which I have considered. There are mixed reactions from the deceased’s family and some members of the public. Whereas some do not object to the release of accused on bond, some do. As is normal, the deceased’s family will ordinarily object to the release of an accused on bond due to bitterness because of their loss. However, that is not a consideration to deny an accused bond. So far, I find no good reason to deny accused bond as no compelling reasons have been disclosed. In the end, I grant accused bond as follows: He may be released on bond of KShs.200,000/= plus one surety of like sum or cash bail of Kshs.50,000/=.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2016.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
18/5/2016
PRESENT
Mr. Mulochi for State
Mr. Ashaba for Accused 3
Ibrahim/Peninah, Court Assistants
Present, Accused 3