This matter was coming up today for the court to consider two applications:
1) Application for grant of bail/bond to 1 st and 2 nd accused.
2) Review of the bail terms of the 3 rd and 4 th accused persons.
As regards to 3 rd and 4 th Accused, the court has attentively listened to the
prosecutor M/s Koech clearly going through the pre-bail report dated
18/3/2026 for both accused. The pre-bail reports are positive for 3 rd and 4 th
accused and propose consideration of review of their bail/bond terms, but, the probation officer suggests, that due to seriousness of the offence, the bond terms be retained as they are, but an alternative the cash bail be considered.
The Office of the Public Prosecution (ODPP) and the investigating officer are not in opposition but urge the court observe caution in weighing the bail terms.
Counsel for the Accused 3 and Accused 4, Mr. Shamula humbly submits that the said accused persons were granted bond of Kshs. 250,000/- plus a surety which they could not afford hence this application for review.
He urges the court to consider lenient bond terms.
In assessing the granting of bond/bail, the court must weigh several factors, which include but not limited to:
1. Seriousness of the offence.
2. Whether or not accused is a flight risk.
3. Likelihood to interfere with witnesses.
4. Previous conduct while on bail/bond.
5. The likelihood to commit more offences.
6. Whether or not they have fixed abode
7. Criminal history of accused
8. Public safety.
The Court is aware that, under Article 50 of the Constitution, accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty but this fundamental right to the accused must be counterbalanced with that of the victim, hence the right to bail under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, is not absolute and this Court has a discretion to balance the competing interests in arriving at appropriate terms of bail/bond.
There is no doubt that the offence of murder is a serious offence for it involves loss of human life and carries the maximum penalty of death. The fact that upon conviction an accused person can be sentenced to death, provides a probable motivation to absconding to escape such an eventuality, hence the court considers that in granting bail terms, the nature of the offence is not taken lightly.
Consequently, having balanced all the factors against the rights of the 3 rd and 4 th accused, and having fully considered the sentiments of the prosecution, the investigating officer, victims, the probation officer’s report vis-a – vis those of the victims family and counsel’s submissions, it is my considered view that the bond terms already granted be maintained in their original form.
Nevertheless, I consider it appropriate to grant an alternative of cash bail together with two credible contact persons to be approved by the Deputy Registrar, in respect Accused 3 and accused 4.
The terms of the cash bail are; accused 3 and accused 4 are each granted alternative cash bail of Kshs. One hundred sixty thousand shillings (160,000) each and to provide two contact persons who shall be examined and their details verified by the Deputy Registrar.
In regard to Accused 1 and Accused 2, each of them is facing other serious criminal cases in different courts, involving offences of robbery with violence that similarly carry a death sentence upon conviction. This in itself, may be enough motivation to abscond should this court consider their grant of bail/bond.
The fact that they are facing serious criminal cases in other courts which the ODPP has outlined has not been denied or contradicted.
The 1 st accused faces a criminal case in Kikuyu Law Courts E200/2026 -charged with robbery with violence, Criminal Case No E524/2026 at Thika Law Courts, charged with robbery with violence and another whose offence is not disclosed is Criminal Case No. E126/2026 at Kamwangi Law Courts.
Similarly, the 2 nd accused has three criminal cases of similar nature in the three courts. Kikuyu Criminal Case No E200/2026 - robbery with violence; Thika Criminal Case E524/2026 - robbery with violence and E126/2026 at Kamwangi Law Courts - the offence is not disclosed
Another fact that is not denied is that as the 1 st accused was being taken into custody, he attempted to escape from lawful custody, which demonstrates his propensity to escape justice given a chance.
The history of the 1 st and 2 nd accused is a factor that this court cannot overlook in weighing whether or not to grant them bail/bond.
Consequently, given this fact, the court must exercise extra caution given that the nature of the present offence is also very serious hence the motivation to run away from the justice should opportunity avail itself cannot be underestimated.
I am, despite counsel of the accused 1 and accused 2 submissions, not inclined to grant bail/bond to the 1 st and 2 nd Accused. I thus decline the application for bail/bond to 1 st and 2 nd accused.
They shall remain in custody until this matter is heard and determined.
Dated, signed and delivered at Thika this 18 th day of June, 2026.
...............................................
L. N. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
2 | Page
1) Application for grant of bail/bond to 1 st and 2 nd accused.
2) Review of the bail terms of the 3 rd and 4 th accused persons.
As regards to 3 rd and 4 th Accused, the court has attentively listened to the
prosecutor M/s Koech clearly going through the pre-bail report dated
18/3/2026 for both accused. The pre-bail reports are positive for 3 rd and 4 th
accused and propose consideration of review of their bail/bond terms, but, the probation officer suggests, that due to seriousness of the offence, the bond terms be retained as they are, but an alternative the cash bail be considered.
The Office of the Public Prosecution (ODPP) and the investigating officer are not in opposition but urge the court observe caution in weighing the bail terms.
Counsel for the Accused 3 and Accused 4, Mr. Shamula humbly submits that the said accused persons were granted bond of Kshs. 250,000/- plus a surety which they could not afford hence this application for review.
He urges the court to consider lenient bond terms.
In assessing the granting of bond/bail, the court must weigh several factors, which include but not limited to:
1. Seriousness of the offence.
2. Whether or not accused is a flight risk.
3. Likelihood to interfere with witnesses.
4. Previous conduct while on bail/bond.
5. The likelihood to commit more offences.
6. Whether or not they have fixed abode
7. Criminal history of accused
8. Public safety.
The Court is aware that, under Article 50 of the Constitution, accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty but this fundamental right to the accused must be counterbalanced with that of the victim, hence the right to bail under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, is not absolute and this Court has a discretion to balance the competing interests in arriving at appropriate terms of bail/bond.
There is no doubt that the offence of murder is a serious offence for it involves loss of human life and carries the maximum penalty of death. The fact that upon conviction an accused person can be sentenced to death, provides a probable motivation to absconding to escape such an eventuality, hence the court considers that in granting bail terms, the nature of the offence is not taken lightly.
Consequently, having balanced all the factors against the rights of the 3 rd and 4 th accused, and having fully considered the sentiments of the prosecution, the investigating officer, victims, the probation officer’s report vis-a – vis those of the victims family and counsel’s submissions, it is my considered view that the bond terms already granted be maintained in their original form.
Nevertheless, I consider it appropriate to grant an alternative of cash bail together with two credible contact persons to be approved by the Deputy Registrar, in respect Accused 3 and accused 4.
The terms of the cash bail are; accused 3 and accused 4 are each granted alternative cash bail of Kshs. One hundred sixty thousand shillings (160,000) each and to provide two contact persons who shall be examined and their details verified by the Deputy Registrar.
In regard to Accused 1 and Accused 2, each of them is facing other serious criminal cases in different courts, involving offences of robbery with violence that similarly carry a death sentence upon conviction. This in itself, may be enough motivation to abscond should this court consider their grant of bail/bond.
The fact that they are facing serious criminal cases in other courts which the ODPP has outlined has not been denied or contradicted.
The 1 st accused faces a criminal case in Kikuyu Law Courts E200/2026 -charged with robbery with violence, Criminal Case No E524/2026 at Thika Law Courts, charged with robbery with violence and another whose offence is not disclosed is Criminal Case No. E126/2026 at Kamwangi Law Courts.
Similarly, the 2 nd accused has three criminal cases of similar nature in the three courts. Kikuyu Criminal Case No E200/2026 - robbery with violence; Thika Criminal Case E524/2026 - robbery with violence and E126/2026 at Kamwangi Law Courts - the offence is not disclosed
Another fact that is not denied is that as the 1 st accused was being taken into custody, he attempted to escape from lawful custody, which demonstrates his propensity to escape justice given a chance.
The history of the 1 st and 2 nd accused is a factor that this court cannot overlook in weighing whether or not to grant them bail/bond.
Consequently, given this fact, the court must exercise extra caution given that the nature of the present offence is also very serious hence the motivation to run away from the justice should opportunity avail itself cannot be underestimated.
I am, despite counsel of the accused 1 and accused 2 submissions, not inclined to grant bail/bond to the 1 st and 2 nd Accused. I thus decline the application for bail/bond to 1 st and 2 nd accused.
They shall remain in custody until this matter is heard and determined.
Dated, signed and delivered at Thika this 18 th day of June, 2026.
...............................................
L. N. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
2 | Page