The court found that although the accused are presumed innocent and entitled to bail, the circumstances of the case present compelling reasons to deny bail at this stage. These include the seriousness of the charge (murder), the risk of interference with key witnesses who reside and work in the locality where the accused and their families also reside, and the heightened public anger at the locus in quo, which raises security concerns for the accused. The court was not persuaded that mere possession of a travel passport by the 3rd accused constituted a flight risk. However, the proximity of the accused to witnesses and the potential for interference, combined with the volatile environment, justified the denial of bail. The court directed that the trial be fast-tracked and allowed for the possibility of renewing the bail application after the testimony of key or vulnerable witnesses.