Phineas Bundi & 1 other v Republic

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CRIMINAL CASE NO. 95 OF 2015 PHINEAS BUNDI……………………….…………… 1st APPLICANT JOSHUA MUTHAURA…………………...………….2ND APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………….RESPONDENT RULING The accused persons are charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code CAP 63 of the Laws of Kenya. By a Notice of Motion Application dated 24 th February 2016, the accused persons have sought to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of this case. The applicants contend that they have a Constitutional right to be released on bail pending the hearing and determination of this case; that they are presumed innocent until proved guilty; that they have a fixed abode and are not a flight risk. The application was not opposed by the State. Before the court considered this application, it asked for pre-bail reports. According to the pre-bail reports filed in court on 27th April 2016, it was stated that the accused persons had been friends with the victim’s family; that other than this incident the accused had never been involved in criminal activities. The community was optimistic that the accused will not abscond court process if given an opportunity to attend court on bail. The mother and sister to the deceased were opposed to the grant of bail stating that the incident had happened recently and was still fresh in their mind and having them released on bail would add more pain to them. I have considered this application, submissions by counsel and the pre bail reports. The State did not object to the accused persons being released on bail. Similarly, the pre-bail reports depicted the accused persons in good light and there are no serious objections to the accused persons being released on bail. In most cases, the deceased’s family will always object to release of an accused on bond because of their pain but the court has to balance the rights of all involved considering that the

page 1 of 2