REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION MISC. CR. APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2017 VERONICA WANJIKU MATHU...........................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT RULING I have perused the trial court record. The cash bail was cancelled based on a supplementary pre-bail report filed on 14/7/2017. The same was prepared on the castigation of the prosecutor who said the bail should be cancelled because the complainant and investigating officer had not been interviewed and because the complainant was a police officer. Earlier, a pre-bail report had been prepared which was favourable to the Applicant. A look at the supplementary pre-bail report totally fails to give reasons that would constitute compelling reasons to warrant a denial of bail. The probation officer Miss. Anne Mwangi merely states that the Investigating officer was opposed to bail because there were other suspects that were at large. My view is that that statement does not constitute a compelling reason to warrant a denial of bail. Firstly because, if the applicant secured a surety, he would still be released. Secondly, it was not demonstrated that the applicant would aid other suspects to commit offences and thirdly, that he would either be a flight risk or interfere with other witnesses. Accordingly, the denial of bail was not informed on any cogent reasons. In the circumstances, I order that the applicant be released on a cash bail of Kshs. 150,000/= in the alternative to the surety bond of Kshs. 500,000/=. Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of November, 2017 G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA JUDGE In the presence of 1. Odongo for the Applicant 2. M/s Akuja for the Respondent.
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.