REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. E120 OF 2025
PERKINS OYUGI ODERO. ...................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC .......................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant, Perkins Oyugi Odero, was arraigned at the Magistrate’s Court sitting in Mavoko and charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and in the alternative, he faced a charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court, in a judgment delivered on 13th November, 2025, convicted him on the main charge and sentenced the applicant to 15 years imprisonment. No finding was made on the alternative charge.
2. The applicant is dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence. He has timeously filed an appeal in this Court dated 26th November 2025 challenging both. The present application by way of Chamber Summons dated 28th January, 2026, is brought under section 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya and prays for the applicant to be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeal and for the court to stay execution of the sentence imposed by the subordinate court pending hearing of the appeal. The application is based on the grounds on the face of the application and supported by the affidavit deponed by the applicant on 28th January, 2026. Through his Counsel Mr. Langalanga, the applicant also filed written submissions dated 27th March 2026 in support of his application.
3. The application is opposed by the State. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, through Ms. Agatha Abang Prosecution Counsel, filed grounds of opposition dated 6th March 2026 as well as written submissions dated 13th April 2026 in opposition to the application.
4. Both counsel for the applicant and for the prosecution relied entirely on their written submissions without the need to orally highlight them.
5. The applicant has proffered the following grounds seeking bail pending appeal:-
a. The Applicant is currently serving fifteen (15) years sentence in Kitengela prison following a conviction by the Mavoko Chief Magistrate's Court in Sexual offences case number E037 OF 2023.
b. The applicant/appellant has filed an Appeal against the conviction and the said appeal raises substantial grounds with an overwhelming chance of success as against the conviction and sentence.
c. There is real apprehension that the pending appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and if the Applicant is not admitted or released on bail he will be prejudiced and his constitutional rights violated.
d. The Appellant is a student at Kamata Entertainment school and the training is ongoing. His continued stay in prison is occasioning academic loss in terms of obtaining practical skills essential for employment and entrepreneurship.
e. The Applicant herein a young man whose future is a stake and if he loses this opportunity to peruse his career it would have a great impact in his life considering the current situation of unemployment of youths.
f. The Applicant in the proceedings at Mavoko law Courts was out on bond of Kshs.300,000/= with a surety of similar amount and has never failed to attend court.
g. The applicant will have served most of his sentence by the time his appeal is heard and determined
6. The applicant argues that the trial Magistrate failed to appreciate and/or analyse the evidence before her and therefore arrived at a decision despite no collaborative evidence. That looking at the grounds of appeal, the appeal has overwhelming chances of success. The applicant also states that he is apprehensive that the pending appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and if he is not admitted or released on bail, he will be prejudiced and his constitutional rights violated. That the applicant is a young man and a student at Kamata Entertainment School as evidenced by the letter marked as annexure "POD.3”and continued incarceration shall be gravely prejudicial to him if he is not released on bail pending appeal. Further, the applicant submits that he is willing and ready to abide by any conditions that this court shall impose in the event that he is admitted to bail pending appeal.
7. In reply, the State argues that the applicant has not shown this court that his appeal has an overwhelming chance of success. The applicant in his submissions lists points of the appeal having an overwhelming chance of success. However, perusing the judgment attached does not show that this appeal would have an overwhelming chance of success. It is argued that the prosecution presented its evidence before the trial court and the trial court was convinced that the applicant committed the crime. The mere listing of the grounds of the appeal in the applicant’s submission is not enough proof of chances of successes of the appeal. Reliance was placed on the case of Masika v Republic (Criminal appeal (Application) E003 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1452 (KLR) the Court of Appeal observed that the application had very little details.
8. The State further submits that as to whether the ingredients of the offence were proved, the same can be canvassed during the hearing of the substantive appeal. That the applicant has not placed before this honourable court what would demonstrate an unusual or exceptional circumstance that would persuade this court to admit the applicant to bail pending appeal.
9. That the applicant’s submission that the appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and that his constitutional rights will be violated. The applicant has not shown any evidence to this court that the appeal will take inordinately long to be heard and determined. Further the rights of the applicant will not be violated in the event that the bail pending appeal is not granted. It is not an absolute right to be granted bail pending appeal.
10. That in deed, the applicant does mention and provide documentation indicating that he was a student at Kamata Entertaining School and training is ongoing, the applicant was however rightfully convicted and sentenced for an offence before the magistrate’s court after a full trial.
11. The fact that he mentions that he is also a first offender and of good character and that he was on bail during trial is not an unusual circumstance that should be considered by this court.
12. On 18th May 2026 when the matter was slated for ruling on the instant application, the applicant’s Counsel sought to have the ruling arrested and applied for the court’s leave to file supplementary submissions after considering the Respondent’s submissions. The said supplementary submissions dated 21st May 2026 were filed on the even date.
Analysis and Determination
13. The law regarding bail/bond pending appeal is now settled. The requirements for admission to bond pending appeal have been summarized to three key issues being that:
a. the applicant has filed an arguable appeal with overwhelming chances of success.
b. the applicant has demonstrated unusual or exceptional circumstances that may persuade the court to exercise its discretion to admit the applicant to bail/bond pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
c. the applicant is likely to serve his full sentence or a substantial portion thereof which may render the appeal nugatory.
14. Our case law has firmly established that bail pending appeal is not an entitlement. Instead, it is generally a matter of the Court’s discretion upon an appellant demonstrating to the Court existence of certain exceptional circumstances. There is no constitutional requirement to grant bail pending appeal. Article 49(i)(h) of the Constitution creates an entitlement to bail pending a charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons not to grant one. The libertarian basis for that entitlement is the constitutional presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. That presumption, however, dissipates upon a valid conviction. At that point, a different presumption kicks in: the presumption of the validity of the conviction and sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal in Isaac Tulicha Guyo v Republic (Crim. App. No 16 of 2010):
“The Court has to bear in mind that a person who has been convicted by a competent court has lost the presumption of innocence conferred on him by the Constitution and that during the hearing of the pending appeal, the burden would be upon the convicted person to show that the conviction was wrong. It is not, therefore, surprising that it has been stated time and time again that bail pending appeal will only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances”.
15. There has been established legal principles which govern the granting of bail pending appeal. In Dominic Karanja v Republic [1986] K.L.R. 612 the Court of Appeal stated the twin considerations thus:
“That the most important issue was that if the appeal had such overwhelming chances of success, there was no justification for depriving the applicant of his liberty and the minor relevant consideration would be whether there were exceptional or unusual circumstances.”
16. The Court of Appeal restated these principles in Jivraj Shah v Republic [1986] K.L.R. 605 in the following words:
“The principal consideration in an application for bail pending appeal is the, existence of exceptional on unusual circumstances upon which the Court of Appeal can fairly conclude that it is in the interest of justice to grant bail. If it appears prima facie from the totality of the circumstances that the appeal is likely to be successful on account of some substantial point of law to be urged and that the sentence or substantial part of it will have been served by the time the appeal is heard, conditions for granting bail will exist….The main criteria is that there is no difference between overwhelming chances of success and a set of circumstances which discloses substantial merit in the appeal which could result in the appeal being allowed and the proper approach is the consideration of the particular circumstances and weight and relevance of the points to be argued.”
17. In short, in order to succeed on his application, the applicant needs to demonstrate that his appeal has overwhelming chances of success or to demonstrate special circumstances militating in favour of the grant of bail pending appeal.
18. In the present case, the applicant argues that his appeal has high chances of success. Due to the presumption of validity of a conviction, the applicable test is “overwhelming chances of success” of the appeal. Indeed, it is a rare case where the Court will grant bail pending appeal on this ground. The ground of appeal being urged has to be droppingly palpable for it to reach this high threshold. This is because the Court would, ordinarily, be careful not to engage in a preview of the appeal in the guise of determining an application for bail pending appeal. The potential for embarrassment of the Judge that eventually hears the appeal is real.
19. The other grounds proffered by the applicant are similarly tenuous and do not cogently demonstrate special circumstances. The fact that the applicant was out on bail during the pendency of his trial and that he was a student then has no bearing on the present application since he has now lost the constitutional presumption of innocence. The law does not provide for conviction of persons found guilty based on their status or position is society. As pointed out, the fact that an appellant enjoyed bail pending trial is consequentially irrelevant in consideration of the question whether he is entitled to bail pending appeal.
20. The applicant argues that he would have served a significant portion of his sentence if bail pending appeal is not granted. It is true that where an applicant demonstrates that he is likely to serve the whole of her sentence or a substantial portion of it, that would likely constitute unusual and exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending appeal. In the present case, the applicant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. We do not think the risk he articulates is credible: objectively aware of our docket, he is unlikely to serve a substantial or the whole of his sentence before his appeal is heard and determined. This Court has ordinarily either granted bail pending appeal or expedited appeals where applicants before it were serving shorter sentences, typically under five years. This applicant cannot benefit from that argument. the applicant has not placed before this honourable court what would demonstrate an unusual or exceptional circumstance that would persuade this court to admit the applicant to bail pending appeal.
21. In order to ascertain whether the Appellant’s appeal has overwhelming chances of success, one needs to go through the evidence adduced before the trial court and the judgment delivered by the learned trial magistrate but without going into any detail in order not to prejudice the court which will eventually hear the appeal.
22. I have perused and considered the trial court’s proceedings which are on the CTS, the judgment dated 13th November 2025 delivered by Hon. E.K. Suter which is on record, the application for bail pending appeal, the grounds of opposition and the parties’ submissions.
23. The applicant while referring to Section 124 of the Evidence Act submits that the credibility and character of PW-1 the victim/complainant is questionable in that she initially informed PW-3 that she was 18 years through a phone text but later when they met, she changed and stated that she was 14 years.
24. The complainant’s mother testified that the complainant had many friends and at one time, one of her former classmates had asked for her naked photos.
25. Further to the above, PW-1 stated that she had run away from home since she had differed with her parents, since none of them was willing to take her back to school as she had a discipline issue. In cross-examination, she testified that she used to chat with Alfred from 2021 and had informed him that her parents were dead and she did not have a place to go.
26. The applicant submits that the testimony of PW-1 clearly demonstrated that she was not an honest person and a such could not benefit from Section 124 of the Evidence Act. did not leave the house after Victor left since she did not have a place to go.
27. Finally, on the issue of penetration, the applicant submits that PW-3 told the court that the house had two beds; she slept with Alfred while the accused slept with the complainant but they were not having sex.
28. The applicant further submits that PW6- Dr. John Njuguna who examined the complainant produced the P3 form, GVRC report and PRC Form. He made a finding that the complainant’s hymen had a 6 O'clock tear with old healing edges but did not state the approximate age of the healing edges and what could have probably caused the injuries to the edges and as such this created doubt in the prosecution’s case. Reference was made to the case of Jacob Odhiambo Omuombo v Republic CR. APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2008 KISUMU where it was held that penetration is a key ingredient of the offence of defilement and must therefore be satisfactorily proved.
29. The applicant submits that the appeal has high chances of success as submitted hereinabove and prays that the applicant be admitted to bail pending appeal.
30. It is the view of this court that the credibility of the evidence of the Complainant and the Doctor who were crucial witnesses in the Prosecution case is challenged by the Appellant who asserts that the same was in doubt and has to be reconsidered on appeal.
31. While being careful not to delve into the merits and demerits of the Appeal. I am persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions that the chances of this Appeal succeeding is overwhelming.
32. Accordingly, this court makes the following orders :-
a) The application dated 26th January 2026 is allowed.
b) Pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, the Appellant shall be released on a bond of Ksh.300,000/= in the alternative cash bail of Ksh.50,000/= with two contact persons in both instances.
c) The Deputy Registrar of this court is directed to call for and avail before this court the trial court’s physical record with or without the typed proceedings at the earliest opportunity for directions on the appeal.
d) A mention date to be fixed for directions on the Appeal
Orders accordingly.
RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 22ND MAY 2026
NOEL I. ADAGI
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 22ND MAY 2026
In the presence of :
Mr. Langalanga................................ for Appellant/Applicant
Ms. Agatha...............................for Respondent
Milly................................. Court Assistant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. E120 OF 2025
PERKINS OYUGI ODERO. ...................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC .......................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant, Perkins Oyugi Odero, was arraigned at the Magistrate’s Court sitting in Mavoko and charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006 and in the alternative, he faced a charge of committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court, in a judgment delivered on 13th November, 2025, convicted him on the main charge and sentenced the applicant to 15 years imprisonment. No finding was made on the alternative charge.
2. The applicant is dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence. He has timeously filed an appeal in this Court dated 26th November 2025 challenging both. The present application by way of Chamber Summons dated 28th January, 2026, is brought under section 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75 Laws of Kenya and prays for the applicant to be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeal and for the court to stay execution of the sentence imposed by the subordinate court pending hearing of the appeal. The application is based on the grounds on the face of the application and supported by the affidavit deponed by the applicant on 28th January, 2026. Through his Counsel Mr. Langalanga, the applicant also filed written submissions dated 27th March 2026 in support of his application.
3. The application is opposed by the State. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, through Ms. Agatha Abang Prosecution Counsel, filed grounds of opposition dated 6th March 2026 as well as written submissions dated 13th April 2026 in opposition to the application.
4. Both counsel for the applicant and for the prosecution relied entirely on their written submissions without the need to orally highlight them.
5. The applicant has proffered the following grounds seeking bail pending appeal:-
a. The Applicant is currently serving fifteen (15) years sentence in Kitengela prison following a conviction by the Mavoko Chief Magistrate's Court in Sexual offences case number E037 OF 2023.
b. The applicant/appellant has filed an Appeal against the conviction and the said appeal raises substantial grounds with an overwhelming chance of success as against the conviction and sentence.
c. There is real apprehension that the pending appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and if the Applicant is not admitted or released on bail he will be prejudiced and his constitutional rights violated.
d. The Appellant is a student at Kamata Entertainment school and the training is ongoing. His continued stay in prison is occasioning academic loss in terms of obtaining practical skills essential for employment and entrepreneurship.
e. The Applicant herein a young man whose future is a stake and if he loses this opportunity to peruse his career it would have a great impact in his life considering the current situation of unemployment of youths.
f. The Applicant in the proceedings at Mavoko law Courts was out on bond of Kshs.300,000/= with a surety of similar amount and has never failed to attend court.
g. The applicant will have served most of his sentence by the time his appeal is heard and determined
6. The applicant argues that the trial Magistrate failed to appreciate and/or analyse the evidence before her and therefore arrived at a decision despite no collaborative evidence. That looking at the grounds of appeal, the appeal has overwhelming chances of success. The applicant also states that he is apprehensive that the pending appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and if he is not admitted or released on bail, he will be prejudiced and his constitutional rights violated. That the applicant is a young man and a student at Kamata Entertainment School as evidenced by the letter marked as annexure "POD.3”and continued incarceration shall be gravely prejudicial to him if he is not released on bail pending appeal. Further, the applicant submits that he is willing and ready to abide by any conditions that this court shall impose in the event that he is admitted to bail pending appeal.
7. In reply, the State argues that the applicant has not shown this court that his appeal has an overwhelming chance of success. The applicant in his submissions lists points of the appeal having an overwhelming chance of success. However, perusing the judgment attached does not show that this appeal would have an overwhelming chance of success. It is argued that the prosecution presented its evidence before the trial court and the trial court was convinced that the applicant committed the crime. The mere listing of the grounds of the appeal in the applicant’s submission is not enough proof of chances of successes of the appeal. Reliance was placed on the case of Masika v Republic (Criminal appeal (Application) E003 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1452 (KLR) the Court of Appeal observed that the application had very little details.
8. The State further submits that as to whether the ingredients of the offence were proved, the same can be canvassed during the hearing of the substantive appeal. That the applicant has not placed before this honourable court what would demonstrate an unusual or exceptional circumstance that would persuade this court to admit the applicant to bail pending appeal.
9. That the applicant’s submission that the appeal may take long before it is heard and determined and that his constitutional rights will be violated. The applicant has not shown any evidence to this court that the appeal will take inordinately long to be heard and determined. Further the rights of the applicant will not be violated in the event that the bail pending appeal is not granted. It is not an absolute right to be granted bail pending appeal.
10. That in deed, the applicant does mention and provide documentation indicating that he was a student at Kamata Entertaining School and training is ongoing, the applicant was however rightfully convicted and sentenced for an offence before the magistrate’s court after a full trial.
11. The fact that he mentions that he is also a first offender and of good character and that he was on bail during trial is not an unusual circumstance that should be considered by this court.
12. On 18th May 2026 when the matter was slated for ruling on the instant application, the applicant’s Counsel sought to have the ruling arrested and applied for the court’s leave to file supplementary submissions after considering the Respondent’s submissions. The said supplementary submissions dated 21st May 2026 were filed on the even date.
Analysis and Determination
13. The law regarding bail/bond pending appeal is now settled. The requirements for admission to bond pending appeal have been summarized to three key issues being that:
a. the applicant has filed an arguable appeal with overwhelming chances of success.
b. the applicant has demonstrated unusual or exceptional circumstances that may persuade the court to exercise its discretion to admit the applicant to bail/bond pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
c. the applicant is likely to serve his full sentence or a substantial portion thereof which may render the appeal nugatory.
14. Our case law has firmly established that bail pending appeal is not an entitlement. Instead, it is generally a matter of the Court’s discretion upon an appellant demonstrating to the Court existence of certain exceptional circumstances. There is no constitutional requirement to grant bail pending appeal. Article 49(i)(h) of the Constitution creates an entitlement to bail pending a charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons not to grant one. The libertarian basis for that entitlement is the constitutional presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. That presumption, however, dissipates upon a valid conviction. At that point, a different presumption kicks in: the presumption of the validity of the conviction and sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal in Isaac Tulicha Guyo v Republic (Crim. App. No 16 of 2010):
“The Court has to bear in mind that a person who has been convicted by a competent court has lost the presumption of innocence conferred on him by the Constitution and that during the hearing of the pending appeal, the burden would be upon the convicted person to show that the conviction was wrong. It is not, therefore, surprising that it has been stated time and time again that bail pending appeal will only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances”.
15. There has been established legal principles which govern the granting of bail pending appeal. In Dominic Karanja v Republic [1986] K.L.R. 612 the Court of Appeal stated the twin considerations thus:
“That the most important issue was that if the appeal had such overwhelming chances of success, there was no justification for depriving the applicant of his liberty and the minor relevant consideration would be whether there were exceptional or unusual circumstances.”
16. The Court of Appeal restated these principles in Jivraj Shah v Republic [1986] K.L.R. 605 in the following words:
“The principal consideration in an application for bail pending appeal is the, existence of exceptional on unusual circumstances upon which the Court of Appeal can fairly conclude that it is in the interest of justice to grant bail. If it appears prima facie from the totality of the circumstances that the appeal is likely to be successful on account of some substantial point of law to be urged and that the sentence or substantial part of it will have been served by the time the appeal is heard, conditions for granting bail will exist….The main criteria is that there is no difference between overwhelming chances of success and a set of circumstances which discloses substantial merit in the appeal which could result in the appeal being allowed and the proper approach is the consideration of the particular circumstances and weight and relevance of the points to be argued.”
17. In short, in order to succeed on his application, the applicant needs to demonstrate that his appeal has overwhelming chances of success or to demonstrate special circumstances militating in favour of the grant of bail pending appeal.
18. In the present case, the applicant argues that his appeal has high chances of success. Due to the presumption of validity of a conviction, the applicable test is “overwhelming chances of success” of the appeal. Indeed, it is a rare case where the Court will grant bail pending appeal on this ground. The ground of appeal being urged has to be droppingly palpable for it to reach this high threshold. This is because the Court would, ordinarily, be careful not to engage in a preview of the appeal in the guise of determining an application for bail pending appeal. The potential for embarrassment of the Judge that eventually hears the appeal is real.
19. The other grounds proffered by the applicant are similarly tenuous and do not cogently demonstrate special circumstances. The fact that the applicant was out on bail during the pendency of his trial and that he was a student then has no bearing on the present application since he has now lost the constitutional presumption of innocence. The law does not provide for conviction of persons found guilty based on their status or position is society. As pointed out, the fact that an appellant enjoyed bail pending trial is consequentially irrelevant in consideration of the question whether he is entitled to bail pending appeal.
20. The applicant argues that he would have served a significant portion of his sentence if bail pending appeal is not granted. It is true that where an applicant demonstrates that he is likely to serve the whole of her sentence or a substantial portion of it, that would likely constitute unusual and exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending appeal. In the present case, the applicant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. We do not think the risk he articulates is credible: objectively aware of our docket, he is unlikely to serve a substantial or the whole of his sentence before his appeal is heard and determined. This Court has ordinarily either granted bail pending appeal or expedited appeals where applicants before it were serving shorter sentences, typically under five years. This applicant cannot benefit from that argument. the applicant has not placed before this honourable court what would demonstrate an unusual or exceptional circumstance that would persuade this court to admit the applicant to bail pending appeal.
21. In order to ascertain whether the Appellant’s appeal has overwhelming chances of success, one needs to go through the evidence adduced before the trial court and the judgment delivered by the learned trial magistrate but without going into any detail in order not to prejudice the court which will eventually hear the appeal.
22. I have perused and considered the trial court’s proceedings which are on the CTS, the judgment dated 13th November 2025 delivered by Hon. E.K. Suter which is on record, the application for bail pending appeal, the grounds of opposition and the parties’ submissions.
23. The applicant while referring to Section 124 of the Evidence Act submits that the credibility and character of PW-1 the victim/complainant is questionable in that she initially informed PW-3 that she was 18 years through a phone text but later when they met, she changed and stated that she was 14 years.
24. The complainant’s mother testified that the complainant had many friends and at one time, one of her former classmates had asked for her naked photos.
25. Further to the above, PW-1 stated that she had run away from home since she had differed with her parents, since none of them was willing to take her back to school as she had a discipline issue. In cross-examination, she testified that she used to chat with Alfred from 2021 and had informed him that her parents were dead and she did not have a place to go.
26. The applicant submits that the testimony of PW-1 clearly demonstrated that she was not an honest person and a such could not benefit from Section 124 of the Evidence Act. did not leave the house after Victor left since she did not have a place to go.
27. Finally, on the issue of penetration, the applicant submits that PW-3 told the court that the house had two beds; she slept with Alfred while the accused slept with the complainant but they were not having sex.
28. The applicant further submits that PW6- Dr. John Njuguna who examined the complainant produced the P3 form, GVRC report and PRC Form. He made a finding that the complainant’s hymen had a 6 O'clock tear with old healing edges but did not state the approximate age of the healing edges and what could have probably caused the injuries to the edges and as such this created doubt in the prosecution’s case. Reference was made to the case of Jacob Odhiambo Omuombo v Republic CR. APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2008 KISUMU where it was held that penetration is a key ingredient of the offence of defilement and must therefore be satisfactorily proved.
29. The applicant submits that the appeal has high chances of success as submitted hereinabove and prays that the applicant be admitted to bail pending appeal.
30. It is the view of this court that the credibility of the evidence of the Complainant and the Doctor who were crucial witnesses in the Prosecution case is challenged by the Appellant who asserts that the same was in doubt and has to be reconsidered on appeal.
31. While being careful not to delve into the merits and demerits of the Appeal. I am persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions that the chances of this Appeal succeeding is overwhelming.
32. Accordingly, this court makes the following orders :-
a) The application dated 26th January 2026 is allowed.
b) Pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, the Appellant shall be released on a bond of Ksh.300,000/= in the alternative cash bail of Ksh.50,000/= with two contact persons in both instances.
c) The Deputy Registrar of this court is directed to call for and avail before this court the trial court’s physical record with or without the typed proceedings at the earliest opportunity for directions on the appeal.
d) A mention date to be fixed for directions on the Appeal
Orders accordingly.
RULING WRITTEN, DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 22ND MAY 2026
NOEL I. ADAGI
JUDGE
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 22ND MAY 2026
In the presence of :
Mr. Langalanga................................ for Appellant/Applicant
Ms. Agatha...............................for Respondent
Milly................................. Court Assistant