[2021] KEHC 9477 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 9477 (KLR)

The court found that since the respondents had no objections to the application for anticipatory bail and confirmed that there were no pending complaints or investigations against the applicants, there was no prejudice to the respondents in granting the orders sought. The court therefore allowed the application and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 9477 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Karauri; Applicant: Francis Waweru Kiarie; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Inspector General Police; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Betting Control and Licensing Board
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E335 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Anticipatory Bail Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Bail, Pretrial Rights, Criminal Procedure
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Anticipatory Bail Pretrial Rights Criminal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Karauri

Applicant

Francis Waweru Kiarie

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Inspector General Police

Respondent

Director of Criminal Investigations

Respondent

Betting Control and Licensing Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Anticipatory Bail Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in the absence of pending complaints or investigations against them.
  2. 2 Whether the extension and confirmation of anticipatory bail would prejudice the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the respondents had no objections to the application for anticipatory bail and confirmed that there were no pending complaints or investigations against the applicants, there was no prejudice to the respondents in granting the orders sought. The court therefore allowed the application and confirmed and extended the anticipatory bail for a period of 120 days from the date of the ruling, in terms of prayer 3 of the application dated 17.12.2020.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The anticipatory bail of the applicants is confirmed and extended for a period of 120 days from the date of this ruling.
  • No orders as to costs.