Nadha v Republic [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR)

Nadha v Republic (Criminal Revision E033 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR) (Crim) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 14941 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Criminal

Criminal Revision E033 of 2022

K Kimondo, J

November 4, 2022

Between

Bhavesh Prabhodas Nadha

Applicant

and

Republic

Respondent

Ruling

1. The applicant seeks review of his bond terms; or, in the alternative, a reasonable and consolidated bond to apply to all the 12 criminal cases facing him in the subordinate court. The request for revision is contained in the notice of motion dated 3rd March 2022.

2. The cases are all pending before the Makadara Chief Magistrate’s Court and numbered 3659 of 2021, 3705 of 2021, 3708 of 2021, 3709 of 2021, 3710 of 2021, 3711 of 2021, 3712 of 2021, 3713 of 2021, 3714 of 2021, 3715 of 2021, 3716 of 2021 and 3717 of 2021.

3. All of them relate to charges of obtaining money by false pretences from different complainants contrary to section 313 of the Penal Code.

4. In a nutshell, he has been granted bond in all the cases but he contends that grand total is too steep. He contends that unless they are consolidated or reviewed into a single reasonable bond, he will be unable to comply.

5. His learned counsel, Ms Ozwara, submitted that the accused is the bread-winner for his family; that he is sickly and his condition has deteriorated in custody; that he requires a specialized diet; and, that bail remains a constitutional right

6. The motion is contested vide grounds of opposition dated October 24, 2022. The republic contends that the trials are distinct and relate to different transactions and complainants. Furthermore, it was argued that it would jeopardize supervision of the bonds or sureties; and, that in any case, there is no evidence of the applicant’s inability to meet the bond terms.

7. I take the following view of the matter. Firstly, all the charges relate to different particulars, dates and complainants. That is why the applicant is facing separate trials. For similar reasons, the trials cannot be consolidated.

8. Secondly, the applicant has been granted bond in all those cases from a low of Kshs 10,000 to a high of Kshs 200,000. The bail terms seem to be generally guided by the gravity of the offence or the sums allegedly obtained by false pretences.

9. Thirdly, the trial magistrate has discretion in setting the terms of bail. I am unable to say that the applicant has demonstrated that the bonds issued in each of those cases were exorbitant or fell afoul of the law or the institution’s bond and bail policy. Paraphrased, there is no ground to reduce the bonds in each of those cases.

10. That said, I agree that the total sums in all the bonds amount to a significant sum. But I am not persuaded to grant a consolidated bond for the following further reasons. As stated, the trials relate to distinct events and different complainants. The cases may be all in the same court house but they are before different trial magistrates. From a managerial perspective, it would make the administration of the bonds or sureties cumbrous. I am well guided by Kimaru J (as he then was) in Jackson Ngui Kisaa v R, High Court, Nairobi Misc. Appl. 48 of 2017 [2017] eKLR.

11. The upshot is that the revision is unmerited and is hereby dismissed.It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022. KANYI KIMONDOJUDGERuling read virtually on Microsoft Teams in the presence of:Applicant via video link.Ms. Ozwara for the applicant.Mr. Mutuma for the respondent instructed by the office of the Director of Public prosecutions.Mr. Edwin Ombuna, Court Assistant.