1.Upon the application for bail pending trial renewed for the 2nd accused after bail was rejected on the ground that he is a flight risk, I have considered the Affidavit in support of bail filed as Replying Affidavit to the Prosecution’s Affidavit in opposition to bail herein.
2.The prosecution points to the accused being a flight risk as he had subsequent to the incident subject of his murder charge kept away from the area for 3 years before arrest.
3.The Accused in reply sets up as changed circumstances that he now has a son aged 14 who was previously living with his maternal family but now lived with his parents and needs his tender care, and that he had therefore “every reason to be in Meru County.”
4.The DPP counters that the prosecution witnesses have not all testified and suggests that the bail be considered once all the prosecution witnesses testify. The issue, however, is whether the accused is a flight risk.
5.The court is not persuaded that there are any changed circumstances relevant to the question of the flight of risk. The accused had been away from Meru when the child now presented as requiring his tender care at 14 years was much younger!
6.On the very sermons compelling reason that the accused is a flight risk, the court is inclined to decline the application for review of bail presented by 2nd accused.
7.In the interest of balance in the criminal process, while preserving the prosecution’s interest in effective prosecution of criminal cases, the court will promote the accused’s right to expeditious trial especially where bail is denied. The court shall order the prosecution to proceed to early trial of the case.
8.Directions for the prosecution to call all majority of their witnesses on the hearing date set for 26/2/2024 shall be made.