Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Criminal Case 55 of 2013 |
---|---|
Parties: | Republic v Martin Kimathi |
Date Delivered: | 20 May 2016 |
Case Class: | Criminal |
Court: | High Court at Meru |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh |
Citation: | Republic v Martin Kimathi [2016] eKLR |
Advocates: | Mr. Mulochi for State Mr. Kahumbi for Accused |
Court Division: | Criminal |
County: | Meru |
Advocates: | Mr. Mulochi for State Mr. Kahumbi for Accused |
History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
Case Outcome: | Bond declined to the accused. |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 55 OF 2013
REPUBLIC............................................................PROSECUTOR
V E R S U S
MARTIN KIMATHI ..................................................... ACCUSED
RULING
On 25/9/2013, Mr. Mokua, Counsel for the accused made an application for bond before J. Lesiit. The application was opposed for reasons that the accused would interfere with witnesses since the witnesses hailed from the same village with him and that accused had been at large since 2012 after he committed the offence and was arrested a year later and was therefore a flight risk.
The court directed the State to file a replying affidavit by investigation officer to explain the delay in arresting the accused.
The investigation officer filed a replying affidavit dated 31/10/2014. Counsel for defence never followed up with this case since 2013 till it came up for hearing. PC Pacho, the investigations officer deponed inter alia that the accused went into hiding form 11/5/2012 till 3/6/2013 when he was arrested and is therefore a flight risk. The accused never filed a further affidavit to rebut the said allegation or explain where he was for one year.
I have considered the pre-bail report in which there was no objection to his release on bond from the victim’s family, the accused’s family and the community. However, there has been no explanation as to why the accused was missing for about one year. Despite the fact that the accused was given an opportunity to respond to the delay, he failed to do so.
The paramount consideration in an application for bond is whether accused will turn up for his trial. If the accused went into hiding for one year, if released, will he show up?
This case is already part heard. Though the pre-bail report is favourable, the lingering question is whether the accused will show up if released. Since the court is not satisfied that the accused will turn up if released on bond because he is a flight risk, I decline to grant the accused bond. He will remain in remand pending determination of the case.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2016.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
20/5/2016
PRESENT
Mr. Mulochi for State
Mr. Kahumbi for Accused
Ibrahim/Peninah, Court Assistant
Present, Accused