A. THE APPLICANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION.
1. The Applicant’s notice of motion dated 31st August, 2026 is presented under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, Section 123A, 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:
a. [Spent].
b. The court be pleased to admit the Applicant herein to reasonable bail and or bond terms pending hearing and determination of the instant application.
c. The court be pleased to exercise its discretion by revising the trial court orders of 31st August, 2026 denying the Applicant bail/bond.
2. The grounds upon which the motion is premised are that the Respondent previously moved the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking orders for the Applicant to be detained in custody pending completion of investigations.
3. The said application was heard and determined on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that the Respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to warrant the Applicant’s detention pending investigations. The Applicant was consequently released on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, and the Respondent was directed to complete the investigations within three days.
4. That on 31st August, 2026, when the matter came up for mention, the Respondent confirmed to the Court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026. The miscellaneous file was thereafter marked as closed.
5. The Applicant subsequently took plea in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 on the same date and was charged with three offences, namely, malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code; forcible entry contrary to Section 90 of the Penal Code; and subjecting a tenant to annoyance contrary to Section 29 of the Rent Restriction Act. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges and applied to be released on reasonable bail or bond terms pending trial.
6. The Respondent opposed the application for bail on the ground that it required the Applicant to remain in custody pending investigations, notwithstanding its earlier representation to the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026 that the investigations had been completed.
7. The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s opposition to bail amounted to a re-agitation of an issue which had previously been considered and determined by the Court on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant his continued detention.
8. It is further contended that the Applicant had complied with the terms of the earlier bail order and duly appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed. He had therefore neither breached the terms of his bail nor demonstrated any intention to abscond.
9. The Applicant further contends that the Respondent failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures, including the imposition of appropriate bail or bond terms, would not adequately secure his attendance before the trial court.
10. It is consequently argued that the trial court erred in denying him bail on the basis that his release might hinder investigations, notwithstanding the Respondent’s confirmation that the investigations had been completed and the Applicant’s continued entitlement to the presumption of innocence.
11. The Applicant therefore contends that the orders of the trial court ought to be revised and urges this Court, in the interests of justice, to allow the application and grant him reasonable bail or bond terms pending the hearing and determination of the criminal case.
B. THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
12. The application is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit sworn on 31st August, 2026 in which he deposes that the Respondent previously filed Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking his detention in custody pending investigations. He has annexed a copy of the application, marked DOM-1.
13. He further deposes that the said application was heard and determined on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that the Respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to warrant his detention pending investigations. He was consequently released on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, a receipt for which he has annexed and marked DOM-2.
14. The Applicant deposes that the Respondent was directed to complete the investigations within three days and that the matter was thereafter listed for mention on 31st August, 2026. On that date, the Respondent confirmed to the Court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026, following which the miscellaneous file was marked as closed.
15. The Applicant further deposes that he took plea on 31st August, 2026 in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026, where he was charged with three offences, namely, malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code; forcible entry contrary to Section 90 of the Penal Code; and subjecting a tenant to annoyance contrary to Section 29 of the Rent Restriction Act. He has annexed a copy of the charge sheet marked DOM-3.
16. He deposes that he pleaded not guilty to all the three counts and that his counsel consequently applied for his release on reasonable bail or bond terms pending trial.
17. .The Applicant states that the Respondent opposed his release on bail on the ground that he was required in custody pending investigations, notwithstanding that the Respondent had earlier represented to the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026 that the investigations had been completed.
18. The Applicant further deposes that the Respondent had previously sought his detention on the same basis in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, through a notice of motion dated 26th August, 2026, and that the Court had already determined the issue by finding that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant his detention and releasing him on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-.
19. The Applicant deposes that, having been released on bail, he duly appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed and had therefore not contravened the terms of his bail or demonstrated that he was a flight risk.
20. He further deposes that the Respondent failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures, including the imposition of appropriate bail terms, would not adequately secure his attendance at trial.
21. He contends that the trial court consequently erred in denying him bail solely on the allegation that his release might hinder investigations, notwithstanding that the investigations had already been represented as complete and that he remained presumed innocent until proved guilty.
22. The Applicant therefore deposes that it is proper for this Court to revise the orders of the trial court and urges that the application be allowed in the interests of justice.
23. The Respondent was duly served with the application which is the subject of this ruling but failed to file any response thereto. On record is an affidavit of service sworn by Bruce O. Odeny, learned Counsel for the Applicant, in which he deposes that he served the application upon the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 4th September, 2026 at 1621 hours. Having considered the said affidavit of service, I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly served.
24. Indeed, when the application came up for hearing earlier today, the Respondent neither appeared nor was represented. The application is therefore unopposed.
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
25. Having considered the notice of motion, the affidavit sworn in support thereof and the record, the following issues avail for determination:
1. Whether the Applicant has established a basis for this Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the orders of the trial court dated 31st August, 2026.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Applicant bail or bond pending the hearing and determination of Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
3. What orders should this Court make on the application, including the issue of bail or bond.
D. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
26. I will proceed to address the three issues sequentially.
27. The first issue for determination is whether the order of the trial court is amenable to revision.
28. The jurisdiction of this Court on revision, which is supervisory in nature, is donated by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
29. Section 362 empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of criminal proceedings before a subordinate court for purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, or the regularity of the proceedings.
30. Under Section 364(1)(b), the Court may, in the case of an order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.
31. The question, therefore, is whether the impugned order of 31st August, 2026 discloses an error in correctness, legality, propriety or regularity warranting the intervention of this Court.
32. The material before the Court demonstrates that the Respondent had previously moved the trial court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking the Applicant’s detention pending investigations.
33. The trial court considered that application on 26th August, 2026 and found that the Respondent had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention. The Applicant was consequently released on cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, while the Respondent was granted three days within which to complete its investigations.
34. The matter was thereafter mentioned on 31st August, 2026. On that date, the Respondent confirmed to the trial court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026. The miscellaneous proceedings were consequently marked as closed.
35. It is against that background that the subsequent proceedings in the criminal case must be considered. Upon being charged, the Applicant pleaded not guilty and sought his release on bail or bond pending trial. The trial court, however, declined to release him, apparently on the basis that he was required in custody pending investigations.
36. With respect, this was an error susceptible to revision. The trial court had already considered the question whether the Applicant ought to be detained to facilitate investigations. It had found no exceptional circumstances to justify such detention, granted the Respondent a specific period within which to complete the investigations, and released the Applicant on bail. The Respondent subsequently confirmed to the very same court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged.
37. In those circumstances, the trial court fell into error by entertaining, as a basis for continued detention, the very ground upon which it had previously pronounced itself and which, by its own subsequent order, had ceased to exist.
38. Having granted timelines for the completion of investigations and thereafter received confirmation that the investigations had been concluded, there was no proper basis upon which the same court could revert to the question of whether the Applicant should remain in custody pending investigations.
39. More significantly, the earlier determination had already addressed the question whether there were circumstances sufficiently compelling to warrant the Applicant’s detention. The finding was that there were none. The subsequent charging of the Applicant did not, without more, constitute a compelling reason for his continued detention. The constitutional position is that an accused person has a right to bail or bond on reasonable conditions unless compelling reasons for its denial are demonstrated.
40. In my view, therefore, the trial court, in declining bail on the basis of investigations which it had already determined ought to have been completed, effectively sat on appeal over its own earlier order. That was an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
41. The trial court could not, in the absence of some new and compelling circumstance, revisit and effectively overturn its own earlier determination that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention.
42. This is precisely the kind of error in propriety and regularity which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
43. I accordingly find that the impugned order of 31st August, 2026 is amenable to revision by this Court.
44. The second issue for determination, which stands largely determined by my findings on the first issue, is whether the trial court erred in declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond.
45. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution confers upon an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to release him.
46. The right is therefore constitutionally guaranteed, and its denial must be justified by reasons that meet the constitutional threshold of being compelling.
47. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court, in determining bail, to have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the nature or seriousness of the offence, the character and antecedents of the accused, his record in fulfilling obligations under previous grants of bail and the strength of the evidence against him.
48. In the present case, the Respondent did not file any response to the application and did not appear at the hearing. There is therefore no material before this Court demonstrating any compelling reason why the Applicant should be denied his constitutional right to bail or bond.
49. Indeed, the only reason discernible from the material before the Court is that the Applicant was required in custody pending investigations. That reason is untenable for two reasons. First, the Respondent had itself informed the trial court that the investigations had been completed. Secondly, the trial court had already considered and rejected the request for detention pending investigations and had released the Applicant on bail.
50. The Applicant’s conduct while previously on bail is also material. He complied with the terms imposed upon him and appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed. There is no evidence that he had absconded, breached his bail terms, interfered with witnesses or otherwise obstructed the administration of justice. On the contrary, his conduct demonstrates compliance with the authority of the Court.
51. The fact that the Applicant had subsequently been charged did not, in itself, displace his constitutional entitlement to bail. The filing of criminal charges is the very circumstance in which the right to bail pending trial ordinarily operates.
52. The presumption of innocence also remains applicable until the Applicant is proved guilty. Bail may properly be denied where compelling reasons are demonstrated, but no such reasons have been placed before this Court.
53. I therefore find that the trial court erred in declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond. Its decision was not only inconsistent with the constitutional entitlement under Article 49(1)(h), but was also inconsistent with its own earlier determination that there were no compelling circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention.
54. What orders then avail, in the circumstances? The Applicant has demonstrated that the order of the trial court dated 31st August, 2026 was improper and is amenable to revision under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the application dated 31st August, 2026 is hereby allowed.
E. DISPOSITION AND ORDERS.
55. Being of the foregoing inclination, I make the following orders:
a. The order of the trial court issued on 31st August, 2026 in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond is revised and set aside.
b. The Applicant, Duncan Otieno Maende, shall henceforth be released on a bond of Ksh.100,000/- with one surety of a similar sum or an alternative of cash bail of Ksh.50,000/- pending the hearing and determination of Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
c. The bond/cash bail shall be processed in the Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 file.
d. The Deputy Registrar of this Court shall cause copy of this ruling to be placed in the file in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
e. Orders accordingly.
56. This file is hereby closed.
DELIVERED, DATED & SIGNED this 10th day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO.
JUDGE
FOR APPLICANT: Ms. Akinyi.
FOR RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Juma.
1. The Applicant’s notice of motion dated 31st August, 2026 is presented under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, Section 123A, 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:
a. [Spent].
b. The court be pleased to admit the Applicant herein to reasonable bail and or bond terms pending hearing and determination of the instant application.
c. The court be pleased to exercise its discretion by revising the trial court orders of 31st August, 2026 denying the Applicant bail/bond.
2. The grounds upon which the motion is premised are that the Respondent previously moved the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking orders for the Applicant to be detained in custody pending completion of investigations.
3. The said application was heard and determined on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that the Respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to warrant the Applicant’s detention pending investigations. The Applicant was consequently released on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, and the Respondent was directed to complete the investigations within three days.
4. That on 31st August, 2026, when the matter came up for mention, the Respondent confirmed to the Court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026. The miscellaneous file was thereafter marked as closed.
5. The Applicant subsequently took plea in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 on the same date and was charged with three offences, namely, malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code; forcible entry contrary to Section 90 of the Penal Code; and subjecting a tenant to annoyance contrary to Section 29 of the Rent Restriction Act. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges and applied to be released on reasonable bail or bond terms pending trial.
6. The Respondent opposed the application for bail on the ground that it required the Applicant to remain in custody pending investigations, notwithstanding its earlier representation to the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026 that the investigations had been completed.
7. The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s opposition to bail amounted to a re-agitation of an issue which had previously been considered and determined by the Court on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant his continued detention.
8. It is further contended that the Applicant had complied with the terms of the earlier bail order and duly appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed. He had therefore neither breached the terms of his bail nor demonstrated any intention to abscond.
9. The Applicant further contends that the Respondent failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures, including the imposition of appropriate bail or bond terms, would not adequately secure his attendance before the trial court.
10. It is consequently argued that the trial court erred in denying him bail on the basis that his release might hinder investigations, notwithstanding the Respondent’s confirmation that the investigations had been completed and the Applicant’s continued entitlement to the presumption of innocence.
11. The Applicant therefore contends that the orders of the trial court ought to be revised and urges this Court, in the interests of justice, to allow the application and grant him reasonable bail or bond terms pending the hearing and determination of the criminal case.
B. THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
12. The application is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit sworn on 31st August, 2026 in which he deposes that the Respondent previously filed Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking his detention in custody pending investigations. He has annexed a copy of the application, marked DOM-1.
13. He further deposes that the said application was heard and determined on 26th August, 2026, when the Court found that the Respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to warrant his detention pending investigations. He was consequently released on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, a receipt for which he has annexed and marked DOM-2.
14. The Applicant deposes that the Respondent was directed to complete the investigations within three days and that the matter was thereafter listed for mention on 31st August, 2026. On that date, the Respondent confirmed to the Court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026, following which the miscellaneous file was marked as closed.
15. The Applicant further deposes that he took plea on 31st August, 2026 in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026, where he was charged with three offences, namely, malicious damage to property contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code; forcible entry contrary to Section 90 of the Penal Code; and subjecting a tenant to annoyance contrary to Section 29 of the Rent Restriction Act. He has annexed a copy of the charge sheet marked DOM-3.
16. He deposes that he pleaded not guilty to all the three counts and that his counsel consequently applied for his release on reasonable bail or bond terms pending trial.
17. .The Applicant states that the Respondent opposed his release on bail on the ground that he was required in custody pending investigations, notwithstanding that the Respondent had earlier represented to the Court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026 that the investigations had been completed.
18. The Applicant further deposes that the Respondent had previously sought his detention on the same basis in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, through a notice of motion dated 26th August, 2026, and that the Court had already determined the issue by finding that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant his detention and releasing him on a cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-.
19. The Applicant deposes that, having been released on bail, he duly appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed and had therefore not contravened the terms of his bail or demonstrated that he was a flight risk.
20. He further deposes that the Respondent failed to demonstrate why less restrictive measures, including the imposition of appropriate bail terms, would not adequately secure his attendance at trial.
21. He contends that the trial court consequently erred in denying him bail solely on the allegation that his release might hinder investigations, notwithstanding that the investigations had already been represented as complete and that he remained presumed innocent until proved guilty.
22. The Applicant therefore deposes that it is proper for this Court to revise the orders of the trial court and urges that the application be allowed in the interests of justice.
23. The Respondent was duly served with the application which is the subject of this ruling but failed to file any response thereto. On record is an affidavit of service sworn by Bruce O. Odeny, learned Counsel for the Applicant, in which he deposes that he served the application upon the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 4th September, 2026 at 1621 hours. Having considered the said affidavit of service, I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly served.
24. Indeed, when the application came up for hearing earlier today, the Respondent neither appeared nor was represented. The application is therefore unopposed.
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
25. Having considered the notice of motion, the affidavit sworn in support thereof and the record, the following issues avail for determination:
1. Whether the Applicant has established a basis for this Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the orders of the trial court dated 31st August, 2026.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Applicant bail or bond pending the hearing and determination of Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
3. What orders should this Court make on the application, including the issue of bail or bond.
D. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
26. I will proceed to address the three issues sequentially.
27. The first issue for determination is whether the order of the trial court is amenable to revision.
28. The jurisdiction of this Court on revision, which is supervisory in nature, is donated by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
29. Section 362 empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of criminal proceedings before a subordinate court for purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, or the regularity of the proceedings.
30. Under Section 364(1)(b), the Court may, in the case of an order other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.
31. The question, therefore, is whether the impugned order of 31st August, 2026 discloses an error in correctness, legality, propriety or regularity warranting the intervention of this Court.
32. The material before the Court demonstrates that the Respondent had previously moved the trial court in Nyando Misc. E078 of 2026, Katito Police Station v Duncan Otieno, seeking the Applicant’s detention pending investigations.
33. The trial court considered that application on 26th August, 2026 and found that the Respondent had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention. The Applicant was consequently released on cash bail of Ksh.30,000/-, while the Respondent was granted three days within which to complete its investigations.
34. The matter was thereafter mentioned on 31st August, 2026. On that date, the Respondent confirmed to the trial court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026. The miscellaneous proceedings were consequently marked as closed.
35. It is against that background that the subsequent proceedings in the criminal case must be considered. Upon being charged, the Applicant pleaded not guilty and sought his release on bail or bond pending trial. The trial court, however, declined to release him, apparently on the basis that he was required in custody pending investigations.
36. With respect, this was an error susceptible to revision. The trial court had already considered the question whether the Applicant ought to be detained to facilitate investigations. It had found no exceptional circumstances to justify such detention, granted the Respondent a specific period within which to complete the investigations, and released the Applicant on bail. The Respondent subsequently confirmed to the very same court that the investigations had been completed and that the Applicant had been charged.
37. In those circumstances, the trial court fell into error by entertaining, as a basis for continued detention, the very ground upon which it had previously pronounced itself and which, by its own subsequent order, had ceased to exist.
38. Having granted timelines for the completion of investigations and thereafter received confirmation that the investigations had been concluded, there was no proper basis upon which the same court could revert to the question of whether the Applicant should remain in custody pending investigations.
39. More significantly, the earlier determination had already addressed the question whether there were circumstances sufficiently compelling to warrant the Applicant’s detention. The finding was that there were none. The subsequent charging of the Applicant did not, without more, constitute a compelling reason for his continued detention. The constitutional position is that an accused person has a right to bail or bond on reasonable conditions unless compelling reasons for its denial are demonstrated.
40. In my view, therefore, the trial court, in declining bail on the basis of investigations which it had already determined ought to have been completed, effectively sat on appeal over its own earlier order. That was an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
41. The trial court could not, in the absence of some new and compelling circumstance, revisit and effectively overturn its own earlier determination that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention.
42. This is precisely the kind of error in propriety and regularity which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
43. I accordingly find that the impugned order of 31st August, 2026 is amenable to revision by this Court.
44. The second issue for determination, which stands largely determined by my findings on the first issue, is whether the trial court erred in declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond.
45. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution confers upon an arrested person the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to release him.
46. The right is therefore constitutionally guaranteed, and its denial must be justified by reasons that meet the constitutional threshold of being compelling.
47. Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Court, in determining bail, to have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the nature or seriousness of the offence, the character and antecedents of the accused, his record in fulfilling obligations under previous grants of bail and the strength of the evidence against him.
48. In the present case, the Respondent did not file any response to the application and did not appear at the hearing. There is therefore no material before this Court demonstrating any compelling reason why the Applicant should be denied his constitutional right to bail or bond.
49. Indeed, the only reason discernible from the material before the Court is that the Applicant was required in custody pending investigations. That reason is untenable for two reasons. First, the Respondent had itself informed the trial court that the investigations had been completed. Secondly, the trial court had already considered and rejected the request for detention pending investigations and had released the Applicant on bail.
50. The Applicant’s conduct while previously on bail is also material. He complied with the terms imposed upon him and appeared before the Court on 31st August, 2026 as directed. There is no evidence that he had absconded, breached his bail terms, interfered with witnesses or otherwise obstructed the administration of justice. On the contrary, his conduct demonstrates compliance with the authority of the Court.
51. The fact that the Applicant had subsequently been charged did not, in itself, displace his constitutional entitlement to bail. The filing of criminal charges is the very circumstance in which the right to bail pending trial ordinarily operates.
52. The presumption of innocence also remains applicable until the Applicant is proved guilty. Bail may properly be denied where compelling reasons are demonstrated, but no such reasons have been placed before this Court.
53. I therefore find that the trial court erred in declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond. Its decision was not only inconsistent with the constitutional entitlement under Article 49(1)(h), but was also inconsistent with its own earlier determination that there were no compelling circumstances warranting the Applicant’s detention.
54. What orders then avail, in the circumstances? The Applicant has demonstrated that the order of the trial court dated 31st August, 2026 was improper and is amenable to revision under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the application dated 31st August, 2026 is hereby allowed.
E. DISPOSITION AND ORDERS.
55. Being of the foregoing inclination, I make the following orders:
a. The order of the trial court issued on 31st August, 2026 in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 declining to release the Applicant on bail or bond is revised and set aside.
b. The Applicant, Duncan Otieno Maende, shall henceforth be released on a bond of Ksh.100,000/- with one surety of a similar sum or an alternative of cash bail of Ksh.50,000/- pending the hearing and determination of Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
c. The bond/cash bail shall be processed in the Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026 file.
d. The Deputy Registrar of this Court shall cause copy of this ruling to be placed in the file in Nyando PMCR No. 565 of 2026.
e. Orders accordingly.
56. This file is hereby closed.
DELIVERED, DATED & SIGNED this 10th day of September, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO.
JUDGE
FOR APPLICANT: Ms. Akinyi.
FOR RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Juma.