RULING ON BOND
Charge.
1. The accused person faces the charge of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
The particulars before court are that on the night of 24th January 2026 at Jau Kali Market Turbo Sub County within Uasin Gishu, in the Republic of Kenya, with malice aforethought, jointly with others not before court murdered one Allan Kibiwot Meli.
2. Though the prosecution did not oppose bond, the court sought for a pre bail report. The pre bail report outlines the circumstances of the accused, the views of the community, and the views of the victim’s family among others.
3. in summary, all the accused is said hail from Uasin Gishu County, and have relatively strong social ties. The family members are not opposed to the release of the accused on bond. The accused is not considered as a flight risk. The accused person has fairly strong familial ties, and has a fixed place of abode.
The Law.
4. Whether the application for bond is merited in terms of Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution provides that:-
An accused person has the right….(h)to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
5. It follows that the right to bail is not absolute and where there are compelling reasons, that right may be restricted. Nevertheless, since the Constitution expressly confers the said right, it is upon the prosecution to show that there exist compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail.
6. The considerations in determining whether or not to grant bail are set out in Kenya Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, March 2015 at p. 25 which sets out judicial policy on bail thus:-
“ the following procedures should apply to the bail hearing:
a. The prosecution shall satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, of the existence of compelling reasons that justify the denial of bail. The Prosecution must, therefore, state the reasons that in its view should persuade the court to deny the accused person bail, including the following:
-b. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings;
Or
c. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, serious offence; or
d. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section 123A of the criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the circumstances; or
e. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
f. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
g. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
h. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.”
7. In Republic vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR the court held that:
“The principles set out under the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines I have been referred to are the same ones that were set out in the celebrated case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic 1985 KLR 451 where Chesoni J, as he then was thus:-“The court in exercising its discretion to grant bail to an accused person under section 123(1) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75), should grant bail to an accused person unless it is shown by the prosecution that there are substantial grounds for believing that:-
a. The accused will fail to turn up at his trial or to surrender to custody;
b. The accused may commit further offences; or
c. He or she will obstruct the course of justice
8. The primary consideration in deciding whether or not to grant bail to an accused person is whether the accused is likely to attend trial. In making this consideration, the court must consider;
a. The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the punishment to be awarded if the applicant is found guilty;
b. The strength of the prosecution case;
c. The character and antecedents of the accused;
d. The likelihood of the accused interfering with prosecution witnesses.”
9. The issue that arises is whether the reasons raised by the probation officers report are compelling reasons under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
10. Guided by the probation officers report, and the circumstances of the accused, no compelling reasons have been established. I find and hold that the accused person is suitable to be released on bond. The speculation by the victim’s family that he could interfered with state witnesses have not been substantiated.
The accused is hereby granted bond in the following terms;
The accused to be released on bond of Ksh 500,000 plus one surety of a similar amount.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Eldoret this 30th day of July, 2026.
Martha. Mutuku
Judge.
Mr. Thuo for state.
Court Assistant- Mr.Kibet
Accused- Present.
Charge.
1. The accused person faces the charge of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code.
The particulars before court are that on the night of 24th January 2026 at Jau Kali Market Turbo Sub County within Uasin Gishu, in the Republic of Kenya, with malice aforethought, jointly with others not before court murdered one Allan Kibiwot Meli.
2. Though the prosecution did not oppose bond, the court sought for a pre bail report. The pre bail report outlines the circumstances of the accused, the views of the community, and the views of the victim’s family among others.
3. in summary, all the accused is said hail from Uasin Gishu County, and have relatively strong social ties. The family members are not opposed to the release of the accused on bond. The accused is not considered as a flight risk. The accused person has fairly strong familial ties, and has a fixed place of abode.
The Law.
4. Whether the application for bond is merited in terms of Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution provides that:-
An accused person has the right….(h)to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
5. It follows that the right to bail is not absolute and where there are compelling reasons, that right may be restricted. Nevertheless, since the Constitution expressly confers the said right, it is upon the prosecution to show that there exist compelling reasons to deny an accused person bail.
6. The considerations in determining whether or not to grant bail are set out in Kenya Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, March 2015 at p. 25 which sets out judicial policy on bail thus:-
“ the following procedures should apply to the bail hearing:
a. The prosecution shall satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, of the existence of compelling reasons that justify the denial of bail. The Prosecution must, therefore, state the reasons that in its view should persuade the court to deny the accused person bail, including the following:
-b. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings;
Or
c. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission of, serious offence; or
d. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section 123A of the criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the circumstances; or
e. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the public; or
f. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; or
g. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
h. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in custody.”
7. In Republic vs Fredrick Ole Leliman & 4 Others [2016] eKLR the court held that:
“The principles set out under the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines I have been referred to are the same ones that were set out in the celebrated case of Ng’ang’a vs Republic 1985 KLR 451 where Chesoni J, as he then was thus:-“The court in exercising its discretion to grant bail to an accused person under section 123(1) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75), should grant bail to an accused person unless it is shown by the prosecution that there are substantial grounds for believing that:-
a. The accused will fail to turn up at his trial or to surrender to custody;
b. The accused may commit further offences; or
c. He or she will obstruct the course of justice
8. The primary consideration in deciding whether or not to grant bail to an accused person is whether the accused is likely to attend trial. In making this consideration, the court must consider;
a. The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the punishment to be awarded if the applicant is found guilty;
b. The strength of the prosecution case;
c. The character and antecedents of the accused;
d. The likelihood of the accused interfering with prosecution witnesses.”
9. The issue that arises is whether the reasons raised by the probation officers report are compelling reasons under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution.
10. Guided by the probation officers report, and the circumstances of the accused, no compelling reasons have been established. I find and hold that the accused person is suitable to be released on bond. The speculation by the victim’s family that he could interfered with state witnesses have not been substantiated.
The accused is hereby granted bond in the following terms;
The accused to be released on bond of Ksh 500,000 plus one surety of a similar amount.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Eldoret this 30th day of July, 2026.
Martha. Mutuku
Judge.
Mr. Thuo for state.
Court Assistant- Mr.Kibet
Accused- Present.