Republic v Langat (Criminal Case E017 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 15579 (KLR) (22 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2022] KEHC 15579 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Criminal Case E017 of 2022
RL Korir, J
November 22, 2022
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Weldon Kipkoech Langat
Accused
Ruling
1.The accused was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on the 7th day of July 2022 at Siongirio Location in Chepalungu Sub County within Bomet County murdered Faith Cherono.
2.On July 21, 2022, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder.
3.Counsel for the accused prayed that the accused be released on bond as he was entitled under article 49 (1) of the Constitution. She further submitted that there was an unfavourable pre bail report but she asked the court to exercise its discretion and grant the bond as the accused would attend court.
4.The prosecution opposed the application by stating that though the pre bail report was not binding to the court, it acted as a guide. The prosecution submitted that the accused’s own family was not ready to stand surety for him and that they had expressed fear for the accused’s life owing to the volatile situation on the ground arising out of the offence.
5.Article 49 (1) (h) states that an accused 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.
6.Case law setting out the principles that guide a trial court when considering whether or not to grant bail to an accused person abound. In the case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic 1985 KLR 451 Chesoni J, (as he then was) held as follows:-
7.Where an application for bail has been made and the trial court under the circumstances is unable to make a determination due to inadequacy of information, it is at liberty to seek more information from the accused or any other necessary party in order to arrive at an informed decision. This may be done through further inquiries as outlined in the Judiciary Bail and Bond Guidelines which states at paragraph 4.26 (c) c that:-
8.In this case, the court called for a pre bail report was filed on October 4, 2022. It stated that the victim’s family was opposed to the accused being released until both families (the accused’s and the victim’s) had concluded reconciliation. They stated that the incident was fresh in their minds for them to consent to the accused’s release. On the other hand, the report stated that no one from the accused’s family was ready to stand surety for him.
9.The report stated that the village elders and the community were opposed to the victim being released on bail and further that the local administration had reservations against the accused’s release due to a hostile environment as both families lived in the same location.
10.The Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines of 2015 have provided parameters to assist the court in exercising discretion judiciously. With respect to bail and bond, they require that the court in granting bail should consider the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the case, interference of witnesses, failure of the accused to attend or where the accused is charged with another case, the need to protect the victim(s), the security and safety of the accused, the likelihood of absconding from the jurisdiction of the court and other factors which must be weighed by the court in the interest of justice. Such an exercise of discretion requires a wholistic approach and the court must, in close circumspection, take to account the circumstances of the case and the accused person individually.
11.In the present case, the community at large and the victim’s family were not receptive to the idea of the accused being released on bond. I am alive to the fact that the accused’s rights must be balanced against those of the public. I am persuaded by the case of Republic vs Danfornd Kabage Mwangi [2016] eKLR where Mativo J (as he then was) observed as follows:-
12.Of particular importance is the fact that the accused’s own family are not willing to stand surety for him. As noted earlier, the primary purpose of bail/bond is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. The attendance of the accused for future court dates cannot be guaranteed where no surety steps in guarantee the accused’s attendance.
13.I am mindful that the accused is charged with the severe offence of murder and the chances of absconding will be higher than when charged with a lesser offence. I agree with the sentiments of Mbogholi Msagha, J (as he then was) in Criminal Application No 319 of 2002 Priscilla Jemutai Kolonge vs Republic (unreported) where he held as follows:
14.In the final analysis and while taking a wholistic approach, it is my finding that the circumstances of this case militate the release of the accused on bail. I am persuaded not to grant him bail at this stage.
15.The application for bond is therefore denied. The accused is at liberty to renew his application at a later stage.
16.Orders Accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022.R. LAGAT-KORIRJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Ms. Chemutai holding brief for Mr. Koske for the Accused, Mr. Waweru holding brief for Mr. Njeru for the State and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).