Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Republic v Anthony Kiplangat

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2016 REPUBLIC ……………………………….………….......… PROSECUTOR versus ANTHONY KIPLANGAT …………........................…..……..… ACCUSED RULING 1. The accused ANTHONY KIPLANGAT is charged with the offence of murder Contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. He is awaiting trial before this court, after pleading not guilty to the charge. 2. By this court’s Ruling of 11th October 2016, the court declined to release the accused on bail pending trial mainly on the ground that he was likely to interfere with witnesses; and that his life may be danger from the members of the community who feel bitter about the death of the deceased. 3. The accused renewed his application for bail on 29 th March, 2017. In renewing that application Learned Counsel Mr Bwonwonga reiterated that the accused mother resides in Narok and she is willing to stand surety for the accused. 4. I have considered all the submissions made before me. The fact remains that the accused’s life may still be at danger from the community if released on bail. There is also the likelihood of interference of the witnesses by the accused. In view of the above I decline to grant the application for bail pending trial. 5. This case is fixed for hearing on 13th June, 2017. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 4th DAY OF APRIL 2017. MARY KASANGO JUDGE CORAM Before Justice Mary Kasango Court Assistant: Ndungu Accused: Anthony Kiplangat ………………………

page 1 of 2

For accused: ………………………………………… For the State: …......................................... COURT Ruling delivered in open court. MARY KASANGO JUDGE

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.