Background
1. The 2nd Accused/Applicant, Alfred Mutwiri Kilemi, is jointly charged with the 1st accused and another person not before court with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on 26th September 2012 at about 8.00 a.m. at Kapyemit Village in Kipkabus Location, Keiyo South Sub-County, within Elgeyo Marakwet County, they jointly murdered Silvano Kipraisi Tubei.
3. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and has remained in custody since November 2024.
4. By a Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2026, brought under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and other enabling provisions, the Applicant seeks release on reasonable bond or cash-bail terms pending trial.
5. The application is supported by his affidavit in which he contends that:
a) He has remained in custody since November 2024;
b) Only one prosecution witness has testified, while approximately twenty-four witnesses remain;
c) The trial is unlikely to be concluded soon;
d) He is presumed innocent until proved guilty;
e) He has a fixed abode in Meru County where his family resides;
f) He has no intention of absconding;
g) He will not interfere with witnesses or investigations;
h) His continued detention has caused hardship to his dependants; and
i) He will comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
6. The application is opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Johnson Tubei, a nephew of the deceased.
7. The deponent states that the Applicant was initially denied bond on 4 February 2025 following an unfavourable pre-bail report dated 2 December 2024. Subsequent requests for review made on 3 March 2025 and 3 June 2025 were also declined.
8. He contends that no material change in circumstances has been demonstrated and that the concerns which informed the earlier decisions remain unresolved.
9. It is further contended that:
a) The Applicant was not easily traced and was arrested after considerable efforts by law-enforcement officers;
b) He is likely to abscond if released;
c) Only one prosecution witness has testified, while approximately twenty-four witnesses remain;
d) Most of the remaining witnesses are members of the deceased’s family and residents of Kipkabus;
e) The Applicant may intimidate, influence or interfere with those witnesses;
f) The deceased’s family remains apprehensive about his release; and
g) The Applicant contributed to delays in the hearing through adjournments sought on his behalf.
10. The prosecution also relies on an affidavit sworn by No. 78556 Cpl. Nicks Karani, the Investigating Officer attached to the Homicide Investigation Department at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Headquarters.
11. The investigating officer deposes that the deceased went missing from his home on 26 September 2012 and that the Applicant was subsequently found in possession of the deceased’s mobile phone. The Applicant was charged with possession of suspected stolen property and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
12. According to the investigating officer, the deceased’s remains were discovered in a shallow grave within his homestead on 31 December 2023. DNA analysis subsequently confirmed that the remains belonged to the deceased.
13. He further deposes that the Applicant and other persons were seen at the deceased’s compound on the material date; that after the incident the accused persons left for unknown destinations and switched off their known mobile phones; and that the Applicant was eventually traced and arrested at Mikinduri in Tigania Central, Meru County, on 13 October 2024.
14. The investigating officer states that considerable time and public resources were expended in tracing the accused persons, that another suspected participant remains at large and that the Applicant knows the identities and locations of key prosecution witnesses.
15. He maintains that the Applicant is a flight risk, that his release may instil fear in or intimidate witnesses and that his safety cannot presently be guaranteed.
16. The pre-bail report dated 2 December 2024 states that the Applicant is a resident of Athwana Village in Tigania Central Sub-County, Meru County. He is married, has two young children and earns a livelihood as a carpenter.
17. His family and local administration in Meru did not oppose his release. His father indicated that he was willing to stand surety for him.
18. The report disclosed the applicant’s previous conviction relating to the deceased’s mobile phone. It also recorded that he complied with bond during that earlier trial.
19. The deceased’s family and local administration in Kipkabus opposed his release. The deceased’s remains had recently been discovered, exhumed and buried on 22nd November 2024. Emotions within the family and community were said to be high, and the applicant’s safety could not be guaranteed.
20. Concerns were also expressed that the Applicant had been difficult to trace, that other suspects remained at large and that his release could compromise continuing investigations or further arrests.
21. The Probation and Aftercare Service consequently found the Applicant unsuitable for release at that time and recommended that consideration of his bond application be deferred.
23. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that an arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
24. The right is reinforced by the presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution. Pretrial detention should not be employed as punishment before the accused’s guilt has been established.
25. The right to bond is, however, not absolute. It may be limited where demonstrated risks cannot reasonably be addressed through appropriate conditions.
26. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR, the Court held that the primary consideration is whether the accused will attend trial. Other relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of witness interference, the safety of the accused and preservation of the integrity of the trial.
27. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the Court stated that compelling reasons must be forceful and convincing circumstances justifying limitation of the constitutional right to liberty. The evidential burden of establishing such reasons ordinarily lies upon the prosecution.
28. The seriousness of the murder charge is relevant, but it cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. It must be considered together with the particular risks disclosed by the evidence.
29. The respondent contends that because the Court previously declined to grant bond, it is functus officio and cannot entertain the present application.
30. That contention is not correct. Bond remains subject to the Court’s supervision throughout the trial. An accused may renew an application where circumstances materially change, just as the Court may cancel or vary bond where new risks arise.
31. In Republic v Diana Suleiman Said & Another [2014] eKLR, the Court held that an accused whose application has been declined may make a renewed application upon demonstrating changed circumstances. The Court must guard against sitting on appeal over its earlier decision while remaining alive to material developments occurring thereafter.
32. The present application is therefore competent. The Applicant must, however, demonstrate a material change in the circumstances which informed the previous refusal.
33. The Applicant relies principally on the period spent in custody and the slow progress of the trial. He states that he has been in custody for more than two years. That assertion is inaccurate. He has been in custody since November 2024 and had therefore been detained for approximately nineteen months when the application was filed in June 2026.
34. The period is nevertheless substantial, particularly because only one prosecution witness has testified and approximately twenty-four witnesses reportedly remain. Prolonged pretrial detention is a relevant consideration, and the prosecution and the Court have a duty to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously.
35. The respondent has, however, identified hearing dates on which the prosecution was ready to proceed but adjournments were sought on behalf of the applicant. These include 3 March 2025, 3 June 2025 and 30 September 2025. On the last date, the matter was reportedly adjourned to enable the Applicant to pursue plea negotiations.
36. The delay cannot therefore be attributed wholly to the prosecution. Passage of time and continued detention do not automatically extinguish compelling reasons previously found to exist.
37. The pre-bail report identified serious security concerns. The deceased’s remains had been discovered after approximately twelve years and buried shortly before the report was prepared. The family and local community were still processing the circumstances of the death and secret burial. The local administration considered the applicant’s immediate release unsafe.
38. The safety of an accused person is a legitimate consideration in a bond determination. The Court should not knowingly release an accused into an environment where there is a real and immediate risk of retaliation or public disorder.
39. In Republic v Wanyama [2026] KEHC 2194 (KLR), the Court recognised that community hostility may constitute a compelling reason where the material placed before the court discloses a real and tangible danger to the accused. Such a concern must be founded on an objective assessment rather than mere apprehension.
40. Similarly, in Republic v Gitahi [2026] KEHC 3766 (KLR), the Court considered continuing community hostility and the safety of the accused in a renewed bond application. The decision demonstrates that where bond was previously declined on security grounds, the Court must examine whether those circumstances have materially changed before varying its earlier order.
41. The Court recognises that the pre-bail report was prepared in December 2024, when the deceased’s burial was recent and emotions were particularly high. A considerable period has since elapsed. Nevertheless, lapse of time alone does not establish that the hostility has dissipated.
42. Importantly, the investigating officer’s affidavit was sworn in May 2026 and is substantially more recent than the pre-bail report. His deposition that the applicant’s safety cannot presently be guaranteed provides a current evidential basis for concluding that the earlier security concerns have not been shown to have dissipated.
43. A pre-bail report is advisory and does not bind the Court. It nevertheless provides an objective social and security assessment which assists the Court in determining whether identified risks are current and whether they may be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
44. In this case, an updated report remains necessary. The existing report was prepared in December 2024, while the Court must determine any future application on current circumstances, including information from the local administration in Kipkabus and Meru County.
45. The Applicant has not provided a definite proposal that, if released, he will reside exclusively in Meru County and stay away from Kipkabus. The Court cannot speculate that the documented danger to his safety and community security no longer exists.
46. In a renewed application, the Applicant bears the initial burden of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances upon which the earlier decision was founded. On the present evidence, that burden has not been discharged.
47. The fact that the Applicant resides in Meru County, some distance from the trial court, is not by itself a compelling reason. Distance can ordinarily be addressed through reporting conditions, verification of residence and provision of a suitable surety.
48. The pre-bail report is favourable to the Applicant to the extent that it confirms that he complied with bond during his earlier criminal trial. A previous conviction does not automatically establish that an accused is a flight risk.
49. However, the investigating officer deposes that following the incident, the accused persons left for unknown destinations and switched off their known mobile phones. He further states that the Applicant was traced and arrested at Mikinduri in Tigania Central, Meru County, on 13 October 2024, after considerable time and public resources had been expended in tracing him.
50. The Court remains mindful that the Applicant is presumed innocent and that the investigating officer’s allegations are yet to be tested at trial. At the bond stage, however, the Court is not determining guilt. It is assessing the risk that the Applicant may fail to attend trial.
51. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another (supra), the Court identified the likelihood of the accused attending trial as the primary consideration in determining bond. The asserted conduct of leaving the locality, switching off known telephone contacts and requiring investigative resources to trace and arrest the Applicant provides an objective basis for apprehension that he may abscond.
52. The seriousness of the charge cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. Nevertheless, when considered together with the circumstances in which the Applicant was allegedly traced and arrested, the outstanding witnesses and the existence of another suspect said to be at large, the risk of non-attendance cannot presently be regarded as speculative.
53. Interference with witnesses is a compelling reason where it is demonstrated by cogent evidence.
54. In Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR, the Court held that interference may take the form of threats, intimidation, inducement, improper contact or other conduct intended to influence witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The apprehension must be founded upon identifiable facts rather than general speculation.
55. The investigating officer deposes that only one prosecution witness has testified; that the Applicant knows where key witnesses reside; and that some of the remaining witnesses are neighbours and persons known to the accused. He expresses apprehension that the applicant’s release before their evidence is secured may expose them to fear or intimidation.
56. No specific post-arrest threat or attempted inducement by the Applicant has been identified. Nevertheless, the relationship and proximity between the Applicant and the remaining civilian witnesses, when considered together with the fact that approximately twenty-four witnesses are yet to testify, creates a legitimate concern requiring further assessment.
57. The Court is not satisfied, on the present material, that ordinary non-contact conditions would adequately address the risk, particularly before the identity and vulnerability of the remaining witnesses and their relationship with the Applicant have been examined in an updated pre-bail report.
58. The deceased’s family is entitled to have its views considered in accordance with Article 50(9) of the Constitution and the Victim Protection Act. Its concerns are genuine and deserve respectful consideration.
59. The family’s views do not confer a veto over the applicant’s constitutional right to bond. They must, however, be weighed together with the security assessment, risk of interference and preservation of the integrity of the trial.
60. In this case, the family’s continuing apprehension, the pre-bail report and the investigating officer’s affidavit cumulatively reinforce the need for a current and objective assessment before the Court can safely conclude that the circumstances have materially changed.
61. The Applicant has remained in custody for a substantial period, and the limited progress of the trial is a matter of legitimate concern. Those circumstances warrant expedition of the trial and future reconsideration of his bond status upon production of updated material.
62. However, the Investigating Officer’s current affidavit, read together with the pre-bail report and the victim’s replying affidavit, demonstrates that the concerns relating to the applicant’s security, likelihood of absconding and possible interference with outstanding witnesses remain unresolved.
63. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated a material change in the circumstances which informed the earlier refusal of bond. His continued detention is not founded merely upon the seriousness of the charge or general community apprehension, but upon the cumulative risks disclosed by the material before the Court.
64. Since the existing pre-bail report was prepared in December 2024, the appropriate course is to dismiss the present application while directing that a fresh report be prepared. The updated assessment will enable the Court, upon a fresh application, to determine whether the risks remain current and whether they can be adequately mitigated through stringent conditions.
Order:
The Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2026 is dismissed.
1. The 2nd Accused/Applicant, Alfred Mutwiri Kilemi, is jointly charged with the 1st accused and another person not before court with murder contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars are that on 26th September 2012 at about 8.00 a.m. at Kapyemit Village in Kipkabus Location, Keiyo South Sub-County, within Elgeyo Marakwet County, they jointly murdered Silvano Kipraisi Tubei.
3. The Applicant pleaded not guilty and has remained in custody since November 2024.
4. By a Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2026, brought under Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution and other enabling provisions, the Applicant seeks release on reasonable bond or cash-bail terms pending trial.
5. The application is supported by his affidavit in which he contends that:
a) He has remained in custody since November 2024;
b) Only one prosecution witness has testified, while approximately twenty-four witnesses remain;
c) The trial is unlikely to be concluded soon;
d) He is presumed innocent until proved guilty;
e) He has a fixed abode in Meru County where his family resides;
f) He has no intention of absconding;
g) He will not interfere with witnesses or investigations;
h) His continued detention has caused hardship to his dependants; and
i) He will comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
6. The application is opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Johnson Tubei, a nephew of the deceased.
7. The deponent states that the Applicant was initially denied bond on 4 February 2025 following an unfavourable pre-bail report dated 2 December 2024. Subsequent requests for review made on 3 March 2025 and 3 June 2025 were also declined.
8. He contends that no material change in circumstances has been demonstrated and that the concerns which informed the earlier decisions remain unresolved.
9. It is further contended that:
a) The Applicant was not easily traced and was arrested after considerable efforts by law-enforcement officers;
b) He is likely to abscond if released;
c) Only one prosecution witness has testified, while approximately twenty-four witnesses remain;
d) Most of the remaining witnesses are members of the deceased’s family and residents of Kipkabus;
e) The Applicant may intimidate, influence or interfere with those witnesses;
f) The deceased’s family remains apprehensive about his release; and
g) The Applicant contributed to delays in the hearing through adjournments sought on his behalf.
10. The prosecution also relies on an affidavit sworn by No. 78556 Cpl. Nicks Karani, the Investigating Officer attached to the Homicide Investigation Department at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Headquarters.
11. The investigating officer deposes that the deceased went missing from his home on 26 September 2012 and that the Applicant was subsequently found in possession of the deceased’s mobile phone. The Applicant was charged with possession of suspected stolen property and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
12. According to the investigating officer, the deceased’s remains were discovered in a shallow grave within his homestead on 31 December 2023. DNA analysis subsequently confirmed that the remains belonged to the deceased.
13. He further deposes that the Applicant and other persons were seen at the deceased’s compound on the material date; that after the incident the accused persons left for unknown destinations and switched off their known mobile phones; and that the Applicant was eventually traced and arrested at Mikinduri in Tigania Central, Meru County, on 13 October 2024.
14. The investigating officer states that considerable time and public resources were expended in tracing the accused persons, that another suspected participant remains at large and that the Applicant knows the identities and locations of key prosecution witnesses.
15. He maintains that the Applicant is a flight risk, that his release may instil fear in or intimidate witnesses and that his safety cannot presently be guaranteed.
16. The pre-bail report dated 2 December 2024 states that the Applicant is a resident of Athwana Village in Tigania Central Sub-County, Meru County. He is married, has two young children and earns a livelihood as a carpenter.
17. His family and local administration in Meru did not oppose his release. His father indicated that he was willing to stand surety for him.
18. The report disclosed the applicant’s previous conviction relating to the deceased’s mobile phone. It also recorded that he complied with bond during that earlier trial.
19. The deceased’s family and local administration in Kipkabus opposed his release. The deceased’s remains had recently been discovered, exhumed and buried on 22nd November 2024. Emotions within the family and community were said to be high, and the applicant’s safety could not be guaranteed.
20. Concerns were also expressed that the Applicant had been difficult to trace, that other suspects remained at large and that his release could compromise continuing investigations or further arrests.
21. The Probation and Aftercare Service consequently found the Applicant unsuitable for release at that time and recommended that consideration of his bond application be deferred.
23. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that an arrested person has the right to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
24. The right is reinforced by the presumption of innocence under Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution. Pretrial detention should not be employed as punishment before the accused’s guilt has been established.
25. The right to bond is, however, not absolute. It may be limited where demonstrated risks cannot reasonably be addressed through appropriate conditions.
26. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another [2010] eKLR, the Court held that the primary consideration is whether the accused will attend trial. Other relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of witness interference, the safety of the accused and preservation of the integrity of the trial.
27. In Republic v Joktan Mayende & 3 Others [2012] eKLR, the Court stated that compelling reasons must be forceful and convincing circumstances justifying limitation of the constitutional right to liberty. The evidential burden of establishing such reasons ordinarily lies upon the prosecution.
28. The seriousness of the murder charge is relevant, but it cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. It must be considered together with the particular risks disclosed by the evidence.
29. The respondent contends that because the Court previously declined to grant bond, it is functus officio and cannot entertain the present application.
30. That contention is not correct. Bond remains subject to the Court’s supervision throughout the trial. An accused may renew an application where circumstances materially change, just as the Court may cancel or vary bond where new risks arise.
31. In Republic v Diana Suleiman Said & Another [2014] eKLR, the Court held that an accused whose application has been declined may make a renewed application upon demonstrating changed circumstances. The Court must guard against sitting on appeal over its earlier decision while remaining alive to material developments occurring thereafter.
32. The present application is therefore competent. The Applicant must, however, demonstrate a material change in the circumstances which informed the previous refusal.
33. The Applicant relies principally on the period spent in custody and the slow progress of the trial. He states that he has been in custody for more than two years. That assertion is inaccurate. He has been in custody since November 2024 and had therefore been detained for approximately nineteen months when the application was filed in June 2026.
34. The period is nevertheless substantial, particularly because only one prosecution witness has testified and approximately twenty-four witnesses reportedly remain. Prolonged pretrial detention is a relevant consideration, and the prosecution and the Court have a duty to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously.
35. The respondent has, however, identified hearing dates on which the prosecution was ready to proceed but adjournments were sought on behalf of the applicant. These include 3 March 2025, 3 June 2025 and 30 September 2025. On the last date, the matter was reportedly adjourned to enable the Applicant to pursue plea negotiations.
36. The delay cannot therefore be attributed wholly to the prosecution. Passage of time and continued detention do not automatically extinguish compelling reasons previously found to exist.
37. The pre-bail report identified serious security concerns. The deceased’s remains had been discovered after approximately twelve years and buried shortly before the report was prepared. The family and local community were still processing the circumstances of the death and secret burial. The local administration considered the applicant’s immediate release unsafe.
38. The safety of an accused person is a legitimate consideration in a bond determination. The Court should not knowingly release an accused into an environment where there is a real and immediate risk of retaliation or public disorder.
39. In Republic v Wanyama [2026] KEHC 2194 (KLR), the Court recognised that community hostility may constitute a compelling reason where the material placed before the court discloses a real and tangible danger to the accused. Such a concern must be founded on an objective assessment rather than mere apprehension.
40. Similarly, in Republic v Gitahi [2026] KEHC 3766 (KLR), the Court considered continuing community hostility and the safety of the accused in a renewed bond application. The decision demonstrates that where bond was previously declined on security grounds, the Court must examine whether those circumstances have materially changed before varying its earlier order.
41. The Court recognises that the pre-bail report was prepared in December 2024, when the deceased’s burial was recent and emotions were particularly high. A considerable period has since elapsed. Nevertheless, lapse of time alone does not establish that the hostility has dissipated.
42. Importantly, the investigating officer’s affidavit was sworn in May 2026 and is substantially more recent than the pre-bail report. His deposition that the applicant’s safety cannot presently be guaranteed provides a current evidential basis for concluding that the earlier security concerns have not been shown to have dissipated.
43. A pre-bail report is advisory and does not bind the Court. It nevertheless provides an objective social and security assessment which assists the Court in determining whether identified risks are current and whether they may be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
44. In this case, an updated report remains necessary. The existing report was prepared in December 2024, while the Court must determine any future application on current circumstances, including information from the local administration in Kipkabus and Meru County.
45. The Applicant has not provided a definite proposal that, if released, he will reside exclusively in Meru County and stay away from Kipkabus. The Court cannot speculate that the documented danger to his safety and community security no longer exists.
46. In a renewed application, the Applicant bears the initial burden of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances upon which the earlier decision was founded. On the present evidence, that burden has not been discharged.
47. The fact that the Applicant resides in Meru County, some distance from the trial court, is not by itself a compelling reason. Distance can ordinarily be addressed through reporting conditions, verification of residence and provision of a suitable surety.
48. The pre-bail report is favourable to the Applicant to the extent that it confirms that he complied with bond during his earlier criminal trial. A previous conviction does not automatically establish that an accused is a flight risk.
49. However, the investigating officer deposes that following the incident, the accused persons left for unknown destinations and switched off their known mobile phones. He further states that the Applicant was traced and arrested at Mikinduri in Tigania Central, Meru County, on 13 October 2024, after considerable time and public resources had been expended in tracing him.
50. The Court remains mindful that the Applicant is presumed innocent and that the investigating officer’s allegations are yet to be tested at trial. At the bond stage, however, the Court is not determining guilt. It is assessing the risk that the Applicant may fail to attend trial.
51. In Republic v Danson Mgunya & Another (supra), the Court identified the likelihood of the accused attending trial as the primary consideration in determining bond. The asserted conduct of leaving the locality, switching off known telephone contacts and requiring investigative resources to trace and arrest the Applicant provides an objective basis for apprehension that he may abscond.
52. The seriousness of the charge cannot, standing alone, justify denial of bond. Nevertheless, when considered together with the circumstances in which the Applicant was allegedly traced and arrested, the outstanding witnesses and the existence of another suspect said to be at large, the risk of non-attendance cannot presently be regarded as speculative.
53. Interference with witnesses is a compelling reason where it is demonstrated by cogent evidence.
54. In Republic v Dwight Sagaray & 4 Others [2013] eKLR, the Court held that interference may take the form of threats, intimidation, inducement, improper contact or other conduct intended to influence witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The apprehension must be founded upon identifiable facts rather than general speculation.
55. The investigating officer deposes that only one prosecution witness has testified; that the Applicant knows where key witnesses reside; and that some of the remaining witnesses are neighbours and persons known to the accused. He expresses apprehension that the applicant’s release before their evidence is secured may expose them to fear or intimidation.
56. No specific post-arrest threat or attempted inducement by the Applicant has been identified. Nevertheless, the relationship and proximity between the Applicant and the remaining civilian witnesses, when considered together with the fact that approximately twenty-four witnesses are yet to testify, creates a legitimate concern requiring further assessment.
57. The Court is not satisfied, on the present material, that ordinary non-contact conditions would adequately address the risk, particularly before the identity and vulnerability of the remaining witnesses and their relationship with the Applicant have been examined in an updated pre-bail report.
58. The deceased’s family is entitled to have its views considered in accordance with Article 50(9) of the Constitution and the Victim Protection Act. Its concerns are genuine and deserve respectful consideration.
59. The family’s views do not confer a veto over the applicant’s constitutional right to bond. They must, however, be weighed together with the security assessment, risk of interference and preservation of the integrity of the trial.
60. In this case, the family’s continuing apprehension, the pre-bail report and the investigating officer’s affidavit cumulatively reinforce the need for a current and objective assessment before the Court can safely conclude that the circumstances have materially changed.
61. The Applicant has remained in custody for a substantial period, and the limited progress of the trial is a matter of legitimate concern. Those circumstances warrant expedition of the trial and future reconsideration of his bond status upon production of updated material.
62. However, the Investigating Officer’s current affidavit, read together with the pre-bail report and the victim’s replying affidavit, demonstrates that the concerns relating to the applicant’s security, likelihood of absconding and possible interference with outstanding witnesses remain unresolved.
63. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated a material change in the circumstances which informed the earlier refusal of bond. His continued detention is not founded merely upon the seriousness of the charge or general community apprehension, but upon the cumulative risks disclosed by the material before the Court.
64. Since the existing pre-bail report was prepared in December 2024, the appropriate course is to dismiss the present application while directing that a fresh report be prepared. The updated assessment will enable the Court, upon a fresh application, to determine whether the risks remain current and whether they can be adequately mitigated through stringent conditions.
Order:
The Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2026 is dismissed.