Republic v Gilbert Kipngetich Keter [2020] KEHC 1248 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT BOMET

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 28 OF 2019

REPUBLIC........................................................DPP

VERSUS

GILBERT KIPNGETICH KETER...........ACCUSED

RULING

1. The application before me seeks that the accused Gilbert Kipngetich Keter, be released on bail pending trial. He is charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. The particulars of the offence are that on the 13th day of December, 2019 at Kagasik village in Sotik Sub- County within Bomet County murdered Edwin Kipkorir Kosgei.

2. In making the application, Mr. Kadet learned counsel for the Accused, submitted that the Accused was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence and prayed that he should be treated as such.

3. On his part, Mr Waweru for the prosecution opposed the application. In his submissions, Mr Waweru admitted that the pre bail report was favourable to the Accused and that there was reconciliation between the Accused’s and deceased’s families. He however submitted that the Accused ought to be denied bail on account of possible interference with witnesses.

4. I have considered the application. Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution gives a suspected or Accused person the right to bail pending charge or trial unless there were compelling reasons. It has been held in many decisions of this court that interference with witnesses is a compelling reason to deny an Accused bond. However, it is not enough for the State, through the prosecution, to merely allege interference. It must do more to demonstrate such interference.

5. In Republic V. Dwight Sagaray & 5 Others, Nairobi Criminal Case No. 61 of 2012 (2014) eKLR), this court held that:-

“For the prosecution to succeed in persuading the court on this criteria (of interference), it must place material before the court which demonstrate actual or perceived interference. It must also show the Court for example the existence of a threat or threats to witnesses; direct or indirect incriminating communication between the accused and witnesses; close familial relationship between the accused and the witnesses among others…, at least some facts must be placed before the court otherwise it is asking the court to speculate.”

6. In the present case, the prosecution merely alleged witness interference. It did not place any material before the court to show that indeed the Accused was likely to interfere with prosecution witnesses. I must therefore dismiss the submission that the Accused will interfere with witnesses as being speculative. In the circumstances, I find no compelling reason to deny the Accused bond.

7. The Accused is granted bail/bond on the following conditions: -

i. The Accused shall execute a personal bond of Kshs.200,000/= and provide one surety of Kshs.200,000/=.

ii. He shall not interfere with witnesses

iii. He shall attend court whenever required and shall not impede the trial in any way.

8. Orders accordingly.

Ruling delivered, dated and signed this 1st day of December, 2020.

..........................

R. LAGAT-KORIR

JUDGE

Ruling delivered in the presence of the Accused, Defence Counsel Mr Kadet, Mr. Mureithi for the DPP, and Kiprotich (Court Assistant).