https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8150

Republic v Vulemi alias Wa Ingo (Criminal Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8150 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8150 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Narok Criminal Case E011 of 2025 CM Kariuki, J June 9, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Derrick Jana Vulemi Alias Wa Ingo Accused Ruling A. Introduction 1.The accused person, Derrick Jana Vulemi alias Wa Ingo, is charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read together with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on 27th June 2025 at Popong Village, Narok Central Sub-County within Narok County, he unlawfully caused the death of Mary Wanjeri. 2.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and subsequently applied to be released on bond pending trial. 3.Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is entitled to bail under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and expressed willingness to comply with any conditions that the Court may impose. Counsel argued that no compelling reasons had been demonstrated to justify denial of bond and contended that allegations relating to community hostility or concerns for the accused's safety do not, without more, constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail. 4.The application was opposed by learned prosecution counsel, who submitted that the interests of justice require that the accused remain in custody pending trial. Counsel acknowledged that no affidavit had been sworn by the investigating officer but urged the Court to rely on the contents of the pre-bail report prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service. 5.The Court has considered the application, the submissions of counsel, and the pre-bail report dated 11th November 2025. B. Issue for Determination 6.The sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons to warrant denial of bond pending trial. C. Analysis and Determination 7.The right to bail is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which provides that:“An arrested person has the right—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.It is now settled that the right to bail is a fundamental constitutional right available to every accused person, irrespective of the nature of the offence charged. However, the right is not absolute and may be limited where the prosecution establishes compelling reasons. 9.In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR, the Court held that compelling reasons are those that are forceful, convincing and capable of persuading the Court that the release of an accused person on bond would prejudice the interests of justice. 10.Similarly, in Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the Court observed that the principal consideration in bail applications is whether the accused person is likely to attend trial and whether his release would undermine the administration of justice. 11.The Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, 2015 further identify relevant considerations including the likelihood of absconding, the accused person's character and community ties, the protection of witnesses, public order considerations, and the security of the accused person. 12.The pre-bail report before the Court raises serious concerns regarding the accused's social background, community ties, and availability for trial. 13.The report indicates that efforts by the Probation Officer to trace the accused's family members and local administration in Hamisi Sub-County were unsuccessful. The persons contacted were unable to identify either the accused or any of his family members. The report further reveals that the accused has not maintained contact with his family for a considerable period and has no means of reaching them. Consequently, none of his relatives is aware of his incarceration. 14.The Court notes that strong family and community ties ordinarily serve as an assurance that an accused person will remain within the jurisdiction of the Court and attend trial. Conversely, the absence of such ties may increase the risk of absconding. 15.The report further discloses that the accused has no known fixed place of residence and that no person has come forward to stand surety for him. The absence of identifiable sureties and stable social connections significantly weakens the Court's ability to secure the accused's attendance during trial. 16.Of equal concern is the prevailing hostility from members of the local community. According to the report, the accused narrowly escaped mob justice immediately after the alleged offence. The deceased's family members and sections of the community remain openly hostile towards him. The Probation Officer formed the opinion that the accused's safety cannot presently be guaranteed if released back into the locality. 17.While community hostility alone may not invariably constitute a compelling reason for denial of bond, the Court must consider whether the hostility presents a real and immediate threat to the safety of the accused person. The Court bears a constitutional duty not only to safeguard the rights of an accused person but also to ensure his security while awaiting trial. 18.In Republic v Kibor [2025] KEHC 15545 (KLR), the Court observed that credible threats to an accused person's safety may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a compelling reason for denial of bail where adequate protection cannot reasonably be assured. 19.Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that the accused presents a substantial flight risk. The absence of a fixed residence, lack of known relatives, inability to trace family members, absence of sureties, and weak social attachments collectively raise legitimate concerns regarding his likelihood of attending trial if released on bond. 20.Although the prosecution did not file an affidavit sworn by the investigating officer, the Court is entitled to rely on a duly prepared pre-bail report where the information contained therein is relevant, credible, and directly addresses the factors contemplated under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines. 21.The Court has carefully balanced the accused's constitutional right to liberty against the interests of justice, the need to secure attendance at trial, and the concerns regarding his personal safety. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court is satisfied that compelling reasons have been established to justify denial of bond at this stage of the proceedings. D. Disposition 22.Consequently, the accused's application for release on bond pending trial is hereby declined. 23.The accused shall remain in lawful custody pending the hearing and determination of this case. 24.For the avoidance of doubt, the accused shall be at liberty to renew the application should there be a material change in circumstances. 25.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGE