1. The accused person in this matter was charged with the offence of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code .
2. This court granted the accused a bond of Ksh. 1 Million plus one surety of a similar amount. The accused person through counsel has approached this court seeking a review of the bail terms claiming that the same are unreasonable.
3. The accused person anchored his application on the provisions of Article 49 (I) (h) of the Constitution.
4. The court has the jurisdiction to review bail terms where the terms earlier on granted are shown to have been unreasonable and or excessively high.
5. The burden of proving that bail terms granted by a court lies with the accused.
6. He must be able to show what effort he has made to raise the bail/bond granted and explain his or her difficulty in meeting the terms.
7. It is not enough to simply claim that the terms are unreasonable. The accused person must also be able to indicate to the court what amount of bail he considers to be reasonable so that the court can weigh his offer against the circumstances of the case and the terms already granted by the court.
8. Section 123 A of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the terms of bail granted be reasonable and the trial court should consider the personal circumstances of the accused besides other considerations.
9. The gravity of the offence too is a factor to be considered. The court appreciates that liberty is precious but this is a case where the interests of justice be carefully balanced with the Accused persons right to liberty. See Danson Mgunya Vs. Rep (2010) eKLR.
10. It is the considered view of the court that the bond terms of imposed. In this matter are reasonable and considering that other than stating that he is a mechanic the accused person has not given the court an insight into his economic status and means.
11. He has also not told the court what amount of Bond he would be able to raise.
12. Accordingly, this court declines to review the Bond of Ksh. 1 Million and all other conditions set by the court.
13. Turning on to the issue of the release of the motor vehicle this court has considered the issue and it does appear from the statements provided to the court by the prosecution the ownership of the motor vehicle is in issue thus it would be premature to order its release at this state.
14. I however direct the prosecution to ensure that at the hearing scheduled for 26 th , 27 th & 28 th January, the witnesses who will be referring to the motor vehicle should be availed to testify so that the court can deal with the matter of release conclusively.
15. It is so ordered.
2. This court granted the accused a bond of Ksh. 1 Million plus one surety of a similar amount. The accused person through counsel has approached this court seeking a review of the bail terms claiming that the same are unreasonable.
3. The accused person anchored his application on the provisions of Article 49 (I) (h) of the Constitution.
4. The court has the jurisdiction to review bail terms where the terms earlier on granted are shown to have been unreasonable and or excessively high.
5. The burden of proving that bail terms granted by a court lies with the accused.
6. He must be able to show what effort he has made to raise the bail/bond granted and explain his or her difficulty in meeting the terms.
7. It is not enough to simply claim that the terms are unreasonable. The accused person must also be able to indicate to the court what amount of bail he considers to be reasonable so that the court can weigh his offer against the circumstances of the case and the terms already granted by the court.
8. Section 123 A of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the terms of bail granted be reasonable and the trial court should consider the personal circumstances of the accused besides other considerations.
9. The gravity of the offence too is a factor to be considered. The court appreciates that liberty is precious but this is a case where the interests of justice be carefully balanced with the Accused persons right to liberty. See Danson Mgunya Vs. Rep (2010) eKLR.
10. It is the considered view of the court that the bond terms of imposed. In this matter are reasonable and considering that other than stating that he is a mechanic the accused person has not given the court an insight into his economic status and means.
11. He has also not told the court what amount of Bond he would be able to raise.
12. Accordingly, this court declines to review the Bond of Ksh. 1 Million and all other conditions set by the court.
13. Turning on to the issue of the release of the motor vehicle this court has considered the issue and it does appear from the statements provided to the court by the prosecution the ownership of the motor vehicle is in issue thus it would be premature to order its release at this state.
14. I however direct the prosecution to ensure that at the hearing scheduled for 26 th , 27 th & 28 th January, the witnesses who will be referring to the motor vehicle should be availed to testify so that the court can deal with the matter of release conclusively.
15. It is so ordered.